Zoo Biology 34: 385–393 (2015)
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Global Climate Change Attitudes and Perceptions Among South American Zoo Visitors Jerry F. Luebke,1* Susan Clayton,2 Lisa-Anne DeGregoria Kelly,1 and Alejandro Grajal1 1 2
Chicago Zoological Society-Brookfield Zoo, Brookfield, Illinois The College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio There is a substantial gap between the scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change and the human response to this evidence. Perceptions of and responses to climate change can differ among regions of the world, as well as within countries. Therefore, information about the public’s attitudes and perceptions related to climate change is essential to the development of relevant educational resources. In the present study, zoo visitors in four South American countries responded to a questionnaire regarding their attitudes and perceptions toward global climate change. Results indicated that most respondents are already highly concerned about global climate change and are interested in greater engagement in pro-environmental behaviors. Visitors also perceive various obstacles to engagement in climate change mitigation behaviors. We discuss the results of our study in terms of addressing visitors’ climate change attitudes and perceptions within the social and emotional © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. context of zoo settings. Zoo Biol. 34:385–393, 2015.
Keywords: connection to nature; culture; informal learning
INTRODUCTION There is widespread scientific agreement that humans are the dominant cause of climate change due to activities contributing to the emission of heat-trapping gases [Mann, 2012; IPCC, 2013]. Humans have the potential to intensify global climate change, but also to respond to it through mitigation. Dietz et al. [2009] for instance, proposed that actions such as weatherizing and maintenance taken by individual households in the United States could reduce carbon emissions by 7.4% with almost no sacrifice. Psychological barriers or obstacles, however, tend to diminish humans’ participation in climate change mitigation behaviors. These obstacles include: (1) lack of conviction that climate change is happening or is problematic, (2) a belief that humans cannot affect climate change, (3) discounting the risks of climate change because it is perceived as geographically or temporally distant, (4) mistrust in information about climate change or the sources of that information, and (5) lack of awareness of climate change mitigation actions [Swim et al., 2010; Gifford, 2011]. Thus, psychological hurdles such as these cannot be overcome solely by providing more information about the mechanisms of the Earth’s climate system.
© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Although climate change is a global phenomenon, not all communities or cultures view climate change similarly or perceive the same extent of barriers to action. A Pew [2009] study, for example, indicated that 90% of Brazilians and 69% of Argentineans indicate that “global warming is a very serious problem,” in contrast to 47% of Canadians and 44% of those in the United States. A study of levels of concern about global warming among persons in 47 countries [Kvaløy et al., 2012] indicated that the most concerned country is Turkey and the least concerned is Zambia. Argentina and Chile ranked second and fifth most Grant sponsor: Chicago Zoological Society Animal Care and Conservation Fund. Conflicts of interest: None. Correspondence to: Jerry F. Luebke, Conservation, Education, and Training, Chicago Zoological Society-Brookfield Zoo, 3300 Golf Road, Brookfield, Illinois 60513. E-mail: [email protected]
Received 02 March 2015; Revised 06 May 2015; Accepted 14 May 2015
DOI: 10.1002/zoo.21224 Published online 28 May 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
386 Luebke et al. concerned, respectively, while the United States ranked 41st. In addition to degrees of concern, responses to climate change also vary among regions. For instance, results from a climate change adaptation planning survey administered to ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability member cities worldwide indicated that relative to other regions (Africa, Asia, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, Europe, and the United States), a greater proportion of Latin American cities are participating in adaptation planning [Carmin et al., 2012]. Additionally, Latin American and Asian cities reported higher rates of partnership with NGOs for adaptation planning; and Latin America and Africa reported anticipated public health impacts of climate change more so than other regions. There are several reasons why climate change views may vary across geographic regions. To begin with, the effects of climate change such as altered storm patterns, hydrologic extremes, and sea-level rise are more salient in some locations than in others [e.g., Patz et al., 2005]. Furthermore, some countries may encourage assigning greater value and/or significance to nature. The ways in which members of a society think about and relate to the environment is culturally patterned by forces ranging from broad value orientations to specific political controversies [Milfont, 2012]. Cultures can also have an indirect effect on attitudes by encouraging a worldview that is more or less compatible with environmentalism. Collectivist values, for example, have been associated with proenvironmental attitudes [Milfont, 2012]. According to research from a cultural cognition perspective, people who hold an egalitarian or a communitarian world view are more likely to believe in anthropogenic climate change than are people with a hierarchical or individualistic worldview [Kahan et al., 2011]. Given the variability of climate change consensus, learning more about individuals’ climate change perceptions in various regions is essential to the development of relevant educational resources that will support participation in behaviors to address this global environmental issue. Zoos and aquariums (henceforth, zoos) are particularly well positioned to play an important role in climate change education as informal science education institutions. A great proportion of science learning takes place outside of the formal classroom setting [Falk and Dierking, 2010] and institutions such as zoos have a tremendous potential to reach public audiences. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), for example, has over 220 accredited member institutions [AZA, 2014], and the Latin American Zoo and Aquarium Association (ALPZA) is comprised of over 50 organizations [ALPZA, 2014]. Worldwide, zoos reach over 700 million visitors annually [Gusset and Dick, 2011]. Zoo visits in the United States have been demonstrated to strengthen visitors’ connections to nature, reinforce visitors’ conservation outlook, and increase visitors’ sense that they can be a part of the solution to environmental problems [Falk et al., Zoo Biology
2007]. Research suggests, furthermore, that zoos can provide positive emotional contexts for visitors [Myers et al., 2004], that the zoo context supports a social identity related to concern for animals and the environment [Clayton et al., 2011], that it is possible to connect emotional affinity for animals to an interest in conservation issues [Clayton et al., 2009], and that emotional engagement supports learning about environmental issues [Ballantyne et al., 2007]. Here we present the results of a large-scale survey study with a sample of South American zoo visitors designed to further investigate the readiness of zoo visitors to engage with the issue of global climate change. In South America, researchers over the last 10–15 years have documented various negative effects of climate change, including loss of biodiversity and current and imminent stresses on agriculture, water resources, and human health [Magrin et al., 2007]. It is projected that climate change will contribute to significant species extinction in tropical South America as deforestation and land use rates increase [e.g., Higgins, 2007; Salazar et al., 2007]. Climate change effects in South America are of particular significance considering this region is among the most biologically diverse in the world, with 20% of plant and animal species residing in the Amazon Basin alone [Magrin et al., 2007; UNDP, 2010]. The Current Study Our study describes South American zoo visitors’ attitudes and perceptions of climate change in addition to describing their beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral predispositions regarding wildlife, nature, and conservation actions. A previous study [Clayton et al., 2014] focused on zoo and aquarium visitors in the United States found that while a majority of visitors were interested in doing more to address climate change, they also perceived various obstacles to engagement in climate change mitigation behaviors. The study also found that a sense of connection to animals and nature was associated with both concern about climate change and pro-environmental behaviors. Finally, the study found that a zoo or aquarium visit provided a positive social context for discussions about climate change. Based on these results, we developed four research questions focused on South American zoo visitors: 1. What are South American zoo visitors’ attitudes and
perceptions concerning climate change? 2. Are South American zoo visitors’ emotional connections to
animals and nature related to their attitudes and perceptions concerning climate change and their zoo visits? 3. Do South American zoos provide visitors with socially supportive and motivating contexts for discussions and responses to climate change? 4. Are there perceived obstacles to engaging in climate change action among South American zoo visitors?
South American Zoo Visitors 387
MATERIALS/METHODS
Participants
Questionnaires
Questionnaires were collected at seven ALPZA zoos located in four countries: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Ecuador. Most zoos were located in large metropolitan areas and were included based on their interest in participating in the study and the availability of staff to administer the questionnaires to visitors. General data collection took place across a three month period. The overall combined count of usable questionnaires was 2,359, including 1,161 of Form A and 1,198 of Form B. For the overall sample, the average age of participants was 32.8 years old, 52% were female, 70% were with children younger than 13 years old, 69% lived in a large city, and 69% “occasionally” or “often” visited a zoo or aquarium. Demographic breakdowns were essentially the same for both questionnaire forms.
We used two independent short paper questionnaires similar to the Clayton et al. [2014] study involving United States zoo and aquarium visitors. By using two forms, we hoped to increase response rate by minimizing the time needed for an individual to complete a questionnaire while still being able to collect a broad range of information. Each visitor completed only one of the two forms. Each form was adapted from questionnaires initially designed for administration in United States zoos and aquariums. The English language questionnaires were translated into Spanish and Portuguese with some modification to improve local relevance. For example, changes were made to some items that specifically asked about the United States, which were revised to ask about “your country” or “your government.” Form A This questionnaire included some items from a national study of the general United States public, the “Six Americas” national study [Leiserowitz et al., 2011] conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communications and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. This study sought to provide a baseline for understanding the American public’s perceptions about global warming. Items from the “Six Americas” study included beliefs in global warming and cognitive/emotional involvement with global warming. Other items included on Form A asked about visitors’ experiences at the zoo, their general tendency toward environmentally relevant behavior, and their perceived connection to animals and nature. To be consistent with the terminology in the United States national study, the phrase “global warming” was used throughout Form A. Form B This questionnaire contained items to primarily assess visitors’ current actions and perceptions in addressing climate change (to compare and contrast the two forms, the phrase “climate change” was used throughout Form B). Items on Form B included: (1) level of agreement that climate change was happening; (2) frequency of current behaviors focused on addressing climate change; (3) perceived personal control over addressing climate change and various perceived barriers to actions; (4) awareness of climate change threats (to human health, ocean health, arctic wildlife, local wildlife, species worldwide, and extreme weather events); (5) sense of connection with zoo animals: “Would you say you feel a sense of connection with the animals you see at a zoo or aquarium?”; and (6) concern about the effects of climate change on self (you, your health, your lifestyle, your future), other people (humanity, children, future generations, people in your country), and the biosphere (animals, birds, marine life, plants) [Schultz, 2001].
Procedures Data collection was coordinated by the Chicago Zoological Society (CZS) and conducted at each participating zoo by local institutional staff. Each site had a designated staff member to coordinate and supervise the data collection. These staff members received standard training and procedure documents and communicated with CZS staff for questions and clarification. Procedures were designed to collect data from a representative sample of individuals visiting each zoo during the data collection period. All institutions distributed both forms simultaneously, randomly alternating between the two. Each respondent completed only one of the two questionnaires. Staff at each of the participating zoos conducted data collection by approaching every second group that crossed a predetermined line at various locations within their facility on a given day. Locations, day of the week, and time of day for surveying varied randomly throughout the data collection period. Once collected, paper questionnaires were mailed to the CZS for data entry. Questionnaires were deemed “usable” and entered only if at least 50% of the questionnaire was completed and if the respondents were aged 18 years or older. Data preparation Based on the analyses reported by Clayton et al. [2014] a number of composite scores of visitors’ item ratings were calculated for the overall data analyses. For Form A, to assess a sense of connection with nature, two items were combined and averaged: “In general, I feel a spiritual connection with nature when I am at a zoo or aquarium” and “I feel I have a lot in common with other species.” Both items were rated on a 7-point scale from “not at all” (1) to “very much so” (7). These two items were moderately correlated at r ¼ 0.40. A short index of environmental behavioral predispositions was also constructed and contained three items: “You usually try to help protect and preserve local wildlife habitats”, “You tend to support conservation organizations (volunteer your time, make a donation, sign Zoo Biology
388 Luebke et al. TABLE 1. Beliefs about global warming (Form A) Country
Do you think global warming is happening? Yes No or Don’t know Assuming global warming is happening, do you think it is. . . Caused mostly by human activities Caused mostly by natural changes in the environment Global warming is not happening or Other
Home location
Brazil (n ¼ 91)
Colombia (n ¼ 548)
Ecuador (n¼ 344)
Argentina (n ¼ 165)
Rural Area (n ¼ 90)
Small City (n ¼ 219)
Large City (n ¼ 741)
95.6% 4.4%
95.3% 4.7%
95.3% 4.7%
96.4% 3.6%
95.6% 4.4%
93.6% 6.4%
96.4% 3.6%
82.2% 17.8%
82.1% 14.6%
86.2% 11.1%
86.3% 10.6%
84.4% 11.2%
80.2% 17.0%
85.4% 12.4%
0.0%
3.3%
2.7%
3.1%
4.4%
2.8%
2.2%
Items taken from the “Six Americas” study.
a petition, etc.)”, and “You typically engage in conservation efforts during your daily activities (recycling, reducing energy usage, buying earth-friendly products, etc.). ” These items were also rated on a 7-point scale from “not at all” (1) to “very much so” (7). For this behavioral score, there was a sufficient amount of internal consistency amongst the item ratings to justify computing an average score across the three items (Cronbach’s coefficient alpha ¼ 0.72; a cut-off value of at least 0.70 is generally accepted in the social sciences). For Form B, the 12 item ratings related to visitors’ concern about the effects of climate change on self, others, and the biosphere were averaged into a single composite score representing overall concern. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for this overall concern score was 0.95 which indicated a high degree of internal consistency amongst the 12 item ratings. An overall awareness of climate change consequences measure was also calculated by taking the average of the item ratings for the six climate change threats. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for this overall score was 0.89. These items from Form B were rated on a 7-point scale from “not at all” (1) to “very much so” (7). RESULTS Research Question 1: What Are South American Zoo Visitors’ Attitudes and Perceptions Concerning Climate Change? As a preliminary step in the data analyses, we compared responses across the two forms to the alternative wording of the same item: “Do you think that (global warming/climate change) is happening?” For Form A, 96% of zoo visitors thought global warming was happening. When posed with this question on Form B using the term climate change, 94% of zoo visitors were in agreement that it was happening. There was no statistically significant difference between these percentages, suggesting there may not be a preferred term among South American zoo visitors.
Zoo Biology
We next looked across the four countries and across home location (i.e., large city, small city, or rural area) at the percent of visitors who agreed global warming was happening and the percent of visitors who agreed global warming was caused mostly by human actions (Form A). The percentages were not significantly different (P > 0.05) among countries or among home locations (x2 test for k independent samples, see Table 1). Similarly, there were no significant differences across countries and home locations on Form B regarding visitors’ level of agreement that climate change was happening. Given these results, we proceeded to examine the questionnaire results based on the entire sample of South American visitors. Consistent with visitors’ general agreement that global warming is happening, we found the majority of visitors reported strong convictions regarding various attitudes and perceptions of global warming. For example, 68% of visitors were “very worried” about global warming and 75% felt global warming will harm them personally “a great deal.” Eighty five percent thought global warming was also presently harming people in their country. In addition, global warming was top of mind for visitors with 77% indicating the issue was “very” or “extremely” important to them personally. In terms of a sense of responsibility, 90% of visitors thought global warming should be a “high” or “very high” priority for their country and 94% felt citizens should be doing “more” or “much more” to address global warming. Lastly, 72% thought their country should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions regardless of what other countries do. Research Question 2: Are South American Zoo Visitors’ Emotional Connections to Animals and Nature Related to Their Attitudes and Perceptions Concerning Climate Change and Their Zoo Visits? On Form B, approximately 49% of visitors reported having a moderate or strong sense of connection with the animals they see at a zoo or aquarium (mean of 3.45 on a 5-
South American Zoo Visitors 389 TABLE 2. Sense of connection and frequency of zoo visits How frequently do you usually visit zoos or aquariums?
Sense of connection with nature composite score (Form A) Sense of connection with zoo and aquarium animals (Form B)
Often
Occasionally
Rarely
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
Significance of mean differences
5.74 (1.56) (n ¼ 180) 4.07 (0.96) (n ¼ 178)
5.27 (1.51) (n ¼ 595) 3.46 (1.03) (n ¼ 563)
4.86 (1.64) (n ¼ 302) 3.16 (1.20) (n ¼ 391)
F(2,1074) ¼ 18.43, P < 0.001, hp ¼ 0.033 F(2,1129) ¼ 43.43, P < 0.001, hp ¼ 0.071
Sense of connection was measured on a 1–7 scale in Form A and a 1–5 scale in Form B. Post-hoc Scheffe tests indicated that for both measures, mean ratings for all three groups were significantly different from one another (P < 0.01).
point scale [SD ¼ 1.12]). On Form A, visitors’ sense of connection to nature was also somewhat strong with a mean of 5.23 on a 7-point scale (SD ¼ 1.58). In addition, both measures were found to be highly related to visitors’ frequency of visiting zoos and aquariums (see Table 2). That is, the more frequently someone visited a zoo or aquarium, the stronger their sense of connection was with animals or nature. To explore the relationship between visitors’ connection to nature with their other ratings related to global warming on Form A, we computed bi-variate Pearson correlations. Table 3 displays the Pearson coefficients for all comparisons. Visitors’ feelings of connection to nature had mild to moderate positive correlations to their thoughts and feelings about global warming such that the stronger their sense of connection to nature, the greater their involvement with global warming. Visitors’ sense of connection was also
positively associated with their perspective that individual citizens should do more to address global warming and that global warming should be a priority for their country. Finally, visitors’ sense of connection to nature had a positive correlation with their various zoo and aquarium experiences; their trustworthiness of zoos and aquariums as a source of information on global warming; and their own environmental behaviors concerning protecting and preserving local wildlife habitats, supporting conservation organizations, and engaging in conservation efforts during their daily activities. We also explored the relationships between visitors’ sense of connection to zoo animals and their other ratings on Form B using bi-variate Pearson correlations. Once again, there were consistent mild positive correlations between visitors’ sense of connection and their awareness of the consequences of climate change, their concern about the effects of climate change, and their own belief that they can
TABLE 3. Pearson’s correlations with sense of connection to nature (Form A) Items Cognitive involvement How much had you thought about global warming before today?* When I am at a zoo or aquarium I am interested in finding out more about how global warming is affecting wildlife and their natural habitats Emotional involvement How worried are you about global warming?* How much do you think global warming will harm you personally?* How important is the issue of global warming to you personally?* How much do you think global warming will harm future generations of people?* Sense of responsibility Do you think citizens themselves should be doing more or less to address global warming?* Zoo experiences I enjoy discussing the exhibit signs and displays with my family or companions while I am at a zoo or aquarium I use my visits to zoos or aquariums as a chance to talk to my family or companions about our relationship to nature Seeing animals at a zoo or aquarium makes me think about my concern for animals in the wild Social implications Do you think global warming should be a low, medium, high, or very high priority for your country?* Zoos and aquariums are trustworthy places to find out how to help reduce the effects of global warming Environmental behavior scale
Connection to Nature 0.25 0.43 0.24 0.15 0.29 0.17 0.14 0.46 0.55 0.48 0.19 0.43 0.37
All coefficients are significant at P < 0.001. *Item taken from the “Six Americas” study.
Zoo Biology
390 Luebke et al. TABLE 4. Pearson’s correlations with sense of connection to zoo animals (Form B) Items
Connection to Zoo Animals
Cognitive involvement Awareness of climate change consequences Emotional involvement Overall concern about the effects of climate change Personal implications How much of an impact do you believe you can have personally on addressing climate change? Social implications Talk to others about the importance of addressing climate change Donate money to a conservation or environmental group Sign a petition or take political action for a conservation cause
0.21 0.21 0.22 0.26 0.16 0.18
All coefficients are significant at P < 0.001.
personally have an impact on addressing climate change (see Table 4). Visitors’ sense of connection with animals was also related to their own current behaviors such that the stronger their feelings of connection to animals, the more often they talked to others about climate change, donated money to an environmental group, and signed a petition or took political action for a conservation cause. Notably, the strongest positive correlations with sense of connection were with social interactions: talking to others about one’s relationship with nature (Form A) or talking with others about climate change (Form B). Finally, we found that visitors who indicated they wanted to do more to address climate change had a significantly higher average rating for their sense of connection with zoo animals (M ¼ 3.51, SD ¼ 1.09) than visitors who did not want to do more to address climate change (M ¼ 2.92, SD ¼ 1.25) (t ¼ 5.06, df ¼ 1133, P < 0.001, Cohen’s d ¼ 0.503). Research Question 3: Do South American Zoos Provide Visitors with Socially Supportive and Motivating Contexts for Discussions and Responses to Climate Change? Approximately 42% of zoo visitors indicated that “most” or “all” of their friends share their views on global warming. We found that the amount of friends visitors had who shared their views on global warming was statistically related to their various zoo experiences such as: (1) visitors’ own enjoyment in discussing exhibit signs and displays with their family/companions (r ¼ 0.22, P < 0.001); (2) visitors’ interest in finding out more about global warming (r ¼ 0.17, P < 0.001); and (3) visitors using their zoo visits as a chance to talk with their family/companions about their relationships with nature (r ¼ 0.15, P < 0.001). Most visitors also tended to report very positive socially supportive and motivating contexts for discussions related to wildlife, nature, and global warming while at zoos or aquariums, as well as a high degree of trust in zoos as sources of global warming information (see Table 5).
Zoo Biology
Research Question 4: Are There Perceived Obstacles to Engaging in Climate Change Action Among South American Zoo Visitors? A total of 81% of zoo visitors believed they can personally have “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of impact on addressing climate change. In contrast, a substantial proportion of zoo visitors hold a pessimistic view of whether other people in general will do what is needed. Fifty percent believe “it is unclear at this point whether we will do what is needed”; and another 14% believe “people are not willing to change their behavior.” We also found that while most visitors have a heightened awareness of various climate change threats, visitors tended to have a spatial bias [e.g., Schultz et al., 2014] such that they perceived climate change as a slightly more distant threat. A paired t-test found that visitors had a stronger agreement that climate change threatens the survival of species worldwide (M ¼ 6.50, SD ¼ 1.17) than they do that it threatens the survival of local wildlife in their region (M ¼ 6.27, SD ¼ 1.32) (t ¼ 7.47, df ¼ 1016, P < 0.001, Cohen’s d ¼ 0.234). Finally, almost all zoo visitors (89%) reported they would like to do more to address climate change, but they also indicated various barriers related to engaging in climate change behaviors. Of those that wanted to do more, 89% indicated at least one barrier to their climate change mitigation behaviors. As shown in Table 6, the most frequently indicated barrier was the uncertainty about the actions that would be effective. Other barriers to action noted by zoo visitors include: the necessary actions would cost too much money or would be too time consuming, and uncertainty that their actions would make a difference. DISCUSSION Despite the variability of social, economic, and geographic characteristics across South American countries, the vast majority of respondents in our sample agree that climate change is happening and is caused by human actions. Moreover, most visitors are highly concerned about the effects of climate change, believe it is presently harming
South American Zoo Visitors 391 TABLE 5. Zoo and aquarium experiences (Form A) Percent of Top 2 Ratingsa
Items Seeing animals at a zoo or aquarium makes me think about my concern for animals in the wild.
76%
When I am at a zoo or aquarium I am interested in finding out more about how global warming is affecting wildlife and their natural habitats. I use my visits to zoos or aquariums as a chance to talk to my family or companions about our relationships to nature. Zoos and aquariums are trustworthy places to find out how to help reduce the effects of global warming.
69%
I enjoy discussing the exhibit signs and displays with my family or companions while I am at a zoo or aquarium. a
66% 59% 49%
M (SD) 6.11 (1.46) 5.87 (1.60) 5.80 (1.61) 5.49 (1.80) 5.13 (1.86)
Percent rating a 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale (7 ¼ Very much so; 4 ¼ Somewhat; 1 ¼ Not at all).
people in their country, and want to do more to address it. The high level of trust visitors have in zoos as sources of climate change information, along with their social enjoyment in conversing about exhibits and their relationships to nature, suggest the strong potential for zoos in South America to include climate change education within exhibit interpretation of the living collection. Overall, respondents’ sense of connection with animals and nature is associated with overall concern about the effects of climate change, a desire to do more to address it, the extent to which they talk to others about the importance of addressing climate change, and perception that they can have a personal impact. Interestingly, although direct comparisons are difficult because of demographic and regional differences in the samples, previous research in the United States [Clayton et al., 2014] using similar questionnaires with zoo visitors found a lower average level of concern about climate change and a lower average level of connection to nature than compared to the current sample. The correlational relationship in the United States between environmental concern and connectedness was, however, almost identical to that in the current sample, suggesting a possible common affective attribute among zoo visitors. Zoos, therefore, can build upon visitors’ engagement with their animal collection in order to foster communities with the capacity to engage in actions that
TABLE 6. Would you like to do more to address climate change? If yes, what is standing in your way of doing more to address climate change? (Select all that apply format) (Form B) Barriers I don’t know what actions would be effective The necessary actions would cost too much money The necessary actions are too time consuming I’m unsure if my actions will make a difference My friends or family would not support my actions The necessary actions are too inconvenient or difficult The necessary actions would make life less comfortable
Percent Checked 40.4% 18.9% 17.8% 17.4% 11.9% 7.8% 5.8%
will have a collective impact on addressing global climate change. Our findings also suggest that even this highly motivated audience has climate change learning needs. When asked what is standing in their way of doing more to address climate change, most respondents reported at least one barrier to action. These findings are consistent with other climate change studies which have found that even when people are deeply concerned about climate change and are willing to act, many experience a sense of futility in light of the barriers they face [Wolf and Moser, 2011]. In addition to perceiving climate change as a slightly more distant threat, pessimism about whether others will do what is necessary to address climate change is another obstacle perceived by respondents. The social setting of a zoo visit may belie such pessimism by encouraging the development of social norms surrounding attitudes and behavior related to climate change. As visitors talk with each other about the material they have learned, they can raise questions, evaluate evidence, pursue additional information, and develop a sense of themselves as engaged individuals. Thus, zoos have an opportunity to draw upon the social context to reinforce individuals’ inclination to address climate change and nurture local collective action, as well as ameliorate pessimism about whether humans will do what is necessary to address climate change. Finally, it should be noted that since we only surveyed visitors in a sample of zoos, the current findings may not be representative of the general populations from these, or other South American countries. In the United States sample, zoo visitors tended to be more concerned about global warming than the general public [Kelly et al., 2014]. Whether this trend is the same for South America is uncertain and additional research is needed to investigate the possible differences in climate change perceptions between zoo visitors and the general population in South America. Nevertheless, results are generally consistent with the idea that Latin American cultures emphasize a collective worldview and a high value for the natural environment [e.g., Corral-Verdugo and Pinheiro, 2009]. Zoo Biology
392 Luebke et al. CONCLUSIONS The zoo community is poised on a considerable opportunity to develop innovative approaches to climate change education for millions of zoo visitors in South America. This opportunity, however, does not need to focus on didactic information delivery about the mechanistic processes or consequences of climate change. Instead, our findings indicate that this audience, already highly receptive to engagement in this pressing environmental issue, would be better served by education resources that demonstrate effective actions, create social and family dialogues around solutions, build optimism surrounding individuals’ inclinations to be part of a local collective movement, and employ affective learning pathways that encourage visitors to make personal connections to climate change. Zoos have a unique opportunity to advocate a strong sense of caring and concern for animals whose very existence is in question due to current changes in climate which can lead to a stronger personal engagement in mitigation behaviors. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank the research assistants who collected the visitor questionnaires and the following institutions for supporting this research: Fundaci on Parque Zoologico de S~ao Paulo (S~ao Paulo, Brazil), Fundaci on Temaiken (Escobar, Argentina), Fundaci on Zool ogica de Cali (Cali, Colombia), Fundacion Zool ogica de Barranquilla (Barranquilla, Colombia), Fundaci on Zool ogico de Santacruz (Bogota, Colombia), Jardın Zool ogico de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires (Buenos Aires, Argentina), and Zoologico de Quito en Guayllabamba (Quito, Ecuador). The authors also thank Jennifer Matiasek for work in data preparation. This research was supported by the Chicago Zoological Society Animal Care and Conservation Fund. REFERENCES [ALPZA] Latin American Zoo and Aquarium Association. 2014. ALPZA members. Retrieved from http://www.alpza.com/eng/miembros.php. [AZA] Association of Zoos and Aquariums. 2014. Zoo and aquarium statistics. Retrieved from http://www.aza.org/zoo-aquarium-statistics. Ballantyne R, Packer J, Hughes K, Dierking LD. 2007. Conservation learning in wildlife tourism settings: Lessons from research in zoos and aquariums. Envirn Educ Res 13:367–383. doi: 10.1080/ 13504620701430604. Carmin J, Nadkami N, Rhie C. 2012. Progress and challenges in urban climate adaptation planning: Results of a global survey. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Retrieved from http://www.icleiusa.org/action-center/learn-fromothers/progress-and-challenges-in-urban-climate-adaptation-planning-results-of-a-global-survey. Clayton S, Fraser J, Burgess C. 2011. The role of zoos in fostering environmental identity. Ecopsychology 3:87–96. doi: 10.1089/ eco.2010.0079. Clayton S, Fraser J, Saunders CD. 2009. Zoo experiences: Conversations, connections, and concern for animals. Zoo Biol 28:377–397. doi: 10.1002/ zoo.20186. Clayton S, Luebke J, Saunders C, Matiasek J, Grajal A. 2014. Connecting to nature at the zoo: Implications for responding to climate change. Environ Edu Res 20:460–475. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2013.
Zoo Biology
Corral-Verdugo V, Pinheiro J. 2009. Environmental psychology with a Latin American taste. J Environ Psychol 29:366–374. doi: 10.1016/j. jenvp.2008.10.007. Dietz T, Gardner G, Gilligan J, Stern P, Vandenberg M. 2009. Household actions can create a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce U.S. carbon emissions. Proc Nat Acad Sci 106:18452–18456. doi: 10.1073/ pnas.0908738106. Falk JH, Dierking LD. 2010. The 95% solution. Ame Sci 98:486–493. doi: 10.1511/2010.87.486. Falk JH, Reinhard EM, Vernon CL, et al. 2007. Why zoos and aquariums matter: Assessing the impact of a visit. Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Retrieved from http://www.aza.org/uploadedFiles/ Education/why_zoos_matter.pdf. Gifford R. 2011. The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am Psychol 66:290–302. doi: 10.1037/a0023566. Gusset M, Dick G. 2011. The global reach of zoos and aquariums in visitor numbers and conservation expenditures. Zoo Biol 30:566–569. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20369. Higgins PAT. 2007. Biodiversity loss under existing land use and climate change: An illustration using northern South America. Global Ecol and Biogeogr 16:197–204. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2006.00278.x. [IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. Summary for Policymakers. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, et al. editors. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_ FINAL.pdf. Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith HC, Braman D. 2011. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J Risk Res 14:147–174. doi: 10.1080/ 13669877.2010.511246. Kelly L-AD, Luebke JF, Clayton S, et al. 2014. Climate change attitudes of zoo and aquarium visitors: Implications for climate literacy education. J Geosci Edu 62:502–510. doi: 10.5408/13-078.1. Kvaløy B, Finseraas H, Listhaug O. 2012. The publics’ concern for global warming: A cross-national study of 47 countries. J Peace Res 49:11–22. doi: 10.1177/0022343311425841. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Smith N. 2011. Global warming’s six Americas, May 2011. New Haven, CT: Yale University and George Mason University. Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Retrieved from http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/ images/files/6_Americas_May_2011_final.pdf Magrin G, Gay Garcıa C, Cruz Choque D, et al. 2007. Latin America In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, editors. Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p 581–615. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4wg2-chapter13.pdf Mann ME. 2012. Climate change science: A summary, recent updates, and resources. In Grajal A, Goldman S, editors. Climate change education: A primer for zoos and aquariums. Chicago, IL: Chicago Zoological Society. p 1–20. Retrieved from www.clizen.org Milfont T. 2012. Cultural differences in environmental engagement. In: Clayton S, editor. Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology. New York: Oxford. p 181–200. Myers OE, Jr, Saunders CD, Birjulin AA. 2004. Emotional dimensions of watching zoo animals: An experience sampling study building on insights from psychology. Curator 47:299–321. doi: 10.1111/j.2151-6952.2004. tb00127.x. Patz J, Campbell-Lendrum D, Holloway T, Foley J. 2005. Impact of regional climate change on human health. Nature 438:310–317. doi: 10.1038/ nature04188. Pew Research Center. 2009. Global warming seen as a major problem around the world. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1427/global-warming-major-problemaround-world-americans-less-concerned. Salazar LF, Nobre CA, Oyama MD. 2007. Climate change consequences on the biome distribution in tropical South America. Geophys Res Lett 34: L09708. doi: 10.1029/2007GL029695. Schultz PW. 2001. The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J Environ Psychol 21:321–339. doi: 10.1006/jevp.2001.0227.
South American Zoo Visitors 393 Schultz PW, Milfont TL, Chance RC, et al. 2014. Cross-cultural evidence for spatial bias in beliefs about the severity of environmental problems. Environ Behav 46:267–302. doi: 10.1177/0013916512458579. Swim J, Clayton S, Doherty T, et al. 2010. Psychology and global climate change: Addressing a multi-faceted phenomenon and set of challenges. A report by the American Psychological Association’s task force on the interface between psychology and global climate change. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved from http://www. apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change-booklet.pdf.
[UNDP] United Nations Development Program. 2010. Latin America and the Caribbean: A biodiversity super power. New York: UNDP. Retrieved from http://web.undp.org/latinamerica/biodiversity-superpower/Download_Reports/Policy_Brief_ENG.pdf. Wolf J, Moser SC. 2011. Individual understandings, perceptions, and engagement with climate change: Insights from in-depth studies across the world. WIREs Clim Change 2:547–569. doi: 10.1002/ wcc.120.
Zoo Biology
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Global Climate Change Attitudes and Perceptions Among South American Zoo Visitors Jerry F. Luebke,1* Susan Clayton,2 Lisa-Anne DeGregoria Kelly,1 and Alejandro Grajal1 1 2
Chicago Zoological Society-Brookfield Zoo, Brookfield, Illinois The College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio There is a substantial gap between the scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change and the human response to this evidence. Perceptions of and responses to climate change can differ among regions of the world, as well as within countries. Therefore, information about the public’s attitudes and perceptions related to climate change is essential to the development of relevant educational resources. In the present study, zoo visitors in four South American countries responded to a questionnaire regarding their attitudes and perceptions toward global climate change. Results indicated that most respondents are already highly concerned about global climate change and are interested in greater engagement in pro-environmental behaviors. Visitors also perceive various obstacles to engagement in climate change mitigation behaviors. We discuss the results of our study in terms of addressing visitors’ climate change attitudes and perceptions within the social and emotional © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. context of zoo settings. Zoo Biol. 34:385–393, 2015.
Keywords: connection to nature; culture; informal learning
INTRODUCTION There is widespread scientific agreement that humans are the dominant cause of climate change due to activities contributing to the emission of heat-trapping gases [Mann, 2012; IPCC, 2013]. Humans have the potential to intensify global climate change, but also to respond to it through mitigation. Dietz et al. [2009] for instance, proposed that actions such as weatherizing and maintenance taken by individual households in the United States could reduce carbon emissions by 7.4% with almost no sacrifice. Psychological barriers or obstacles, however, tend to diminish humans’ participation in climate change mitigation behaviors. These obstacles include: (1) lack of conviction that climate change is happening or is problematic, (2) a belief that humans cannot affect climate change, (3) discounting the risks of climate change because it is perceived as geographically or temporally distant, (4) mistrust in information about climate change or the sources of that information, and (5) lack of awareness of climate change mitigation actions [Swim et al., 2010; Gifford, 2011]. Thus, psychological hurdles such as these cannot be overcome solely by providing more information about the mechanisms of the Earth’s climate system.
© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Although climate change is a global phenomenon, not all communities or cultures view climate change similarly or perceive the same extent of barriers to action. A Pew [2009] study, for example, indicated that 90% of Brazilians and 69% of Argentineans indicate that “global warming is a very serious problem,” in contrast to 47% of Canadians and 44% of those in the United States. A study of levels of concern about global warming among persons in 47 countries [Kvaløy et al., 2012] indicated that the most concerned country is Turkey and the least concerned is Zambia. Argentina and Chile ranked second and fifth most Grant sponsor: Chicago Zoological Society Animal Care and Conservation Fund. Conflicts of interest: None. Correspondence to: Jerry F. Luebke, Conservation, Education, and Training, Chicago Zoological Society-Brookfield Zoo, 3300 Golf Road, Brookfield, Illinois 60513. E-mail: [email protected]
Received 02 March 2015; Revised 06 May 2015; Accepted 14 May 2015
DOI: 10.1002/zoo.21224 Published online 28 May 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
386 Luebke et al. concerned, respectively, while the United States ranked 41st. In addition to degrees of concern, responses to climate change also vary among regions. For instance, results from a climate change adaptation planning survey administered to ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability member cities worldwide indicated that relative to other regions (Africa, Asia, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, Europe, and the United States), a greater proportion of Latin American cities are participating in adaptation planning [Carmin et al., 2012]. Additionally, Latin American and Asian cities reported higher rates of partnership with NGOs for adaptation planning; and Latin America and Africa reported anticipated public health impacts of climate change more so than other regions. There are several reasons why climate change views may vary across geographic regions. To begin with, the effects of climate change such as altered storm patterns, hydrologic extremes, and sea-level rise are more salient in some locations than in others [e.g., Patz et al., 2005]. Furthermore, some countries may encourage assigning greater value and/or significance to nature. The ways in which members of a society think about and relate to the environment is culturally patterned by forces ranging from broad value orientations to specific political controversies [Milfont, 2012]. Cultures can also have an indirect effect on attitudes by encouraging a worldview that is more or less compatible with environmentalism. Collectivist values, for example, have been associated with proenvironmental attitudes [Milfont, 2012]. According to research from a cultural cognition perspective, people who hold an egalitarian or a communitarian world view are more likely to believe in anthropogenic climate change than are people with a hierarchical or individualistic worldview [Kahan et al., 2011]. Given the variability of climate change consensus, learning more about individuals’ climate change perceptions in various regions is essential to the development of relevant educational resources that will support participation in behaviors to address this global environmental issue. Zoos and aquariums (henceforth, zoos) are particularly well positioned to play an important role in climate change education as informal science education institutions. A great proportion of science learning takes place outside of the formal classroom setting [Falk and Dierking, 2010] and institutions such as zoos have a tremendous potential to reach public audiences. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), for example, has over 220 accredited member institutions [AZA, 2014], and the Latin American Zoo and Aquarium Association (ALPZA) is comprised of over 50 organizations [ALPZA, 2014]. Worldwide, zoos reach over 700 million visitors annually [Gusset and Dick, 2011]. Zoo visits in the United States have been demonstrated to strengthen visitors’ connections to nature, reinforce visitors’ conservation outlook, and increase visitors’ sense that they can be a part of the solution to environmental problems [Falk et al., Zoo Biology
2007]. Research suggests, furthermore, that zoos can provide positive emotional contexts for visitors [Myers et al., 2004], that the zoo context supports a social identity related to concern for animals and the environment [Clayton et al., 2011], that it is possible to connect emotional affinity for animals to an interest in conservation issues [Clayton et al., 2009], and that emotional engagement supports learning about environmental issues [Ballantyne et al., 2007]. Here we present the results of a large-scale survey study with a sample of South American zoo visitors designed to further investigate the readiness of zoo visitors to engage with the issue of global climate change. In South America, researchers over the last 10–15 years have documented various negative effects of climate change, including loss of biodiversity and current and imminent stresses on agriculture, water resources, and human health [Magrin et al., 2007]. It is projected that climate change will contribute to significant species extinction in tropical South America as deforestation and land use rates increase [e.g., Higgins, 2007; Salazar et al., 2007]. Climate change effects in South America are of particular significance considering this region is among the most biologically diverse in the world, with 20% of plant and animal species residing in the Amazon Basin alone [Magrin et al., 2007; UNDP, 2010]. The Current Study Our study describes South American zoo visitors’ attitudes and perceptions of climate change in addition to describing their beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral predispositions regarding wildlife, nature, and conservation actions. A previous study [Clayton et al., 2014] focused on zoo and aquarium visitors in the United States found that while a majority of visitors were interested in doing more to address climate change, they also perceived various obstacles to engagement in climate change mitigation behaviors. The study also found that a sense of connection to animals and nature was associated with both concern about climate change and pro-environmental behaviors. Finally, the study found that a zoo or aquarium visit provided a positive social context for discussions about climate change. Based on these results, we developed four research questions focused on South American zoo visitors: 1. What are South American zoo visitors’ attitudes and
perceptions concerning climate change? 2. Are South American zoo visitors’ emotional connections to
animals and nature related to their attitudes and perceptions concerning climate change and their zoo visits? 3. Do South American zoos provide visitors with socially supportive and motivating contexts for discussions and responses to climate change? 4. Are there perceived obstacles to engaging in climate change action among South American zoo visitors?
South American Zoo Visitors 387
MATERIALS/METHODS
Participants
Questionnaires
Questionnaires were collected at seven ALPZA zoos located in four countries: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Ecuador. Most zoos were located in large metropolitan areas and were included based on their interest in participating in the study and the availability of staff to administer the questionnaires to visitors. General data collection took place across a three month period. The overall combined count of usable questionnaires was 2,359, including 1,161 of Form A and 1,198 of Form B. For the overall sample, the average age of participants was 32.8 years old, 52% were female, 70% were with children younger than 13 years old, 69% lived in a large city, and 69% “occasionally” or “often” visited a zoo or aquarium. Demographic breakdowns were essentially the same for both questionnaire forms.
We used two independent short paper questionnaires similar to the Clayton et al. [2014] study involving United States zoo and aquarium visitors. By using two forms, we hoped to increase response rate by minimizing the time needed for an individual to complete a questionnaire while still being able to collect a broad range of information. Each visitor completed only one of the two forms. Each form was adapted from questionnaires initially designed for administration in United States zoos and aquariums. The English language questionnaires were translated into Spanish and Portuguese with some modification to improve local relevance. For example, changes were made to some items that specifically asked about the United States, which were revised to ask about “your country” or “your government.” Form A This questionnaire included some items from a national study of the general United States public, the “Six Americas” national study [Leiserowitz et al., 2011] conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communications and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. This study sought to provide a baseline for understanding the American public’s perceptions about global warming. Items from the “Six Americas” study included beliefs in global warming and cognitive/emotional involvement with global warming. Other items included on Form A asked about visitors’ experiences at the zoo, their general tendency toward environmentally relevant behavior, and their perceived connection to animals and nature. To be consistent with the terminology in the United States national study, the phrase “global warming” was used throughout Form A. Form B This questionnaire contained items to primarily assess visitors’ current actions and perceptions in addressing climate change (to compare and contrast the two forms, the phrase “climate change” was used throughout Form B). Items on Form B included: (1) level of agreement that climate change was happening; (2) frequency of current behaviors focused on addressing climate change; (3) perceived personal control over addressing climate change and various perceived barriers to actions; (4) awareness of climate change threats (to human health, ocean health, arctic wildlife, local wildlife, species worldwide, and extreme weather events); (5) sense of connection with zoo animals: “Would you say you feel a sense of connection with the animals you see at a zoo or aquarium?”; and (6) concern about the effects of climate change on self (you, your health, your lifestyle, your future), other people (humanity, children, future generations, people in your country), and the biosphere (animals, birds, marine life, plants) [Schultz, 2001].
Procedures Data collection was coordinated by the Chicago Zoological Society (CZS) and conducted at each participating zoo by local institutional staff. Each site had a designated staff member to coordinate and supervise the data collection. These staff members received standard training and procedure documents and communicated with CZS staff for questions and clarification. Procedures were designed to collect data from a representative sample of individuals visiting each zoo during the data collection period. All institutions distributed both forms simultaneously, randomly alternating between the two. Each respondent completed only one of the two questionnaires. Staff at each of the participating zoos conducted data collection by approaching every second group that crossed a predetermined line at various locations within their facility on a given day. Locations, day of the week, and time of day for surveying varied randomly throughout the data collection period. Once collected, paper questionnaires were mailed to the CZS for data entry. Questionnaires were deemed “usable” and entered only if at least 50% of the questionnaire was completed and if the respondents were aged 18 years or older. Data preparation Based on the analyses reported by Clayton et al. [2014] a number of composite scores of visitors’ item ratings were calculated for the overall data analyses. For Form A, to assess a sense of connection with nature, two items were combined and averaged: “In general, I feel a spiritual connection with nature when I am at a zoo or aquarium” and “I feel I have a lot in common with other species.” Both items were rated on a 7-point scale from “not at all” (1) to “very much so” (7). These two items were moderately correlated at r ¼ 0.40. A short index of environmental behavioral predispositions was also constructed and contained three items: “You usually try to help protect and preserve local wildlife habitats”, “You tend to support conservation organizations (volunteer your time, make a donation, sign Zoo Biology
388 Luebke et al. TABLE 1. Beliefs about global warming (Form A) Country
Do you think global warming is happening? Yes No or Don’t know Assuming global warming is happening, do you think it is. . . Caused mostly by human activities Caused mostly by natural changes in the environment Global warming is not happening or Other
Home location
Brazil (n ¼ 91)
Colombia (n ¼ 548)
Ecuador (n¼ 344)
Argentina (n ¼ 165)
Rural Area (n ¼ 90)
Small City (n ¼ 219)
Large City (n ¼ 741)
95.6% 4.4%
95.3% 4.7%
95.3% 4.7%
96.4% 3.6%
95.6% 4.4%
93.6% 6.4%
96.4% 3.6%
82.2% 17.8%
82.1% 14.6%
86.2% 11.1%
86.3% 10.6%
84.4% 11.2%
80.2% 17.0%
85.4% 12.4%
0.0%
3.3%
2.7%
3.1%
4.4%
2.8%
2.2%
Items taken from the “Six Americas” study.
a petition, etc.)”, and “You typically engage in conservation efforts during your daily activities (recycling, reducing energy usage, buying earth-friendly products, etc.). ” These items were also rated on a 7-point scale from “not at all” (1) to “very much so” (7). For this behavioral score, there was a sufficient amount of internal consistency amongst the item ratings to justify computing an average score across the three items (Cronbach’s coefficient alpha ¼ 0.72; a cut-off value of at least 0.70 is generally accepted in the social sciences). For Form B, the 12 item ratings related to visitors’ concern about the effects of climate change on self, others, and the biosphere were averaged into a single composite score representing overall concern. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for this overall concern score was 0.95 which indicated a high degree of internal consistency amongst the 12 item ratings. An overall awareness of climate change consequences measure was also calculated by taking the average of the item ratings for the six climate change threats. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for this overall score was 0.89. These items from Form B were rated on a 7-point scale from “not at all” (1) to “very much so” (7). RESULTS Research Question 1: What Are South American Zoo Visitors’ Attitudes and Perceptions Concerning Climate Change? As a preliminary step in the data analyses, we compared responses across the two forms to the alternative wording of the same item: “Do you think that (global warming/climate change) is happening?” For Form A, 96% of zoo visitors thought global warming was happening. When posed with this question on Form B using the term climate change, 94% of zoo visitors were in agreement that it was happening. There was no statistically significant difference between these percentages, suggesting there may not be a preferred term among South American zoo visitors.
Zoo Biology
We next looked across the four countries and across home location (i.e., large city, small city, or rural area) at the percent of visitors who agreed global warming was happening and the percent of visitors who agreed global warming was caused mostly by human actions (Form A). The percentages were not significantly different (P > 0.05) among countries or among home locations (x2 test for k independent samples, see Table 1). Similarly, there were no significant differences across countries and home locations on Form B regarding visitors’ level of agreement that climate change was happening. Given these results, we proceeded to examine the questionnaire results based on the entire sample of South American visitors. Consistent with visitors’ general agreement that global warming is happening, we found the majority of visitors reported strong convictions regarding various attitudes and perceptions of global warming. For example, 68% of visitors were “very worried” about global warming and 75% felt global warming will harm them personally “a great deal.” Eighty five percent thought global warming was also presently harming people in their country. In addition, global warming was top of mind for visitors with 77% indicating the issue was “very” or “extremely” important to them personally. In terms of a sense of responsibility, 90% of visitors thought global warming should be a “high” or “very high” priority for their country and 94% felt citizens should be doing “more” or “much more” to address global warming. Lastly, 72% thought their country should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions regardless of what other countries do. Research Question 2: Are South American Zoo Visitors’ Emotional Connections to Animals and Nature Related to Their Attitudes and Perceptions Concerning Climate Change and Their Zoo Visits? On Form B, approximately 49% of visitors reported having a moderate or strong sense of connection with the animals they see at a zoo or aquarium (mean of 3.45 on a 5-
South American Zoo Visitors 389 TABLE 2. Sense of connection and frequency of zoo visits How frequently do you usually visit zoos or aquariums?
Sense of connection with nature composite score (Form A) Sense of connection with zoo and aquarium animals (Form B)
Often
Occasionally
Rarely
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
Significance of mean differences
5.74 (1.56) (n ¼ 180) 4.07 (0.96) (n ¼ 178)
5.27 (1.51) (n ¼ 595) 3.46 (1.03) (n ¼ 563)
4.86 (1.64) (n ¼ 302) 3.16 (1.20) (n ¼ 391)
F(2,1074) ¼ 18.43, P < 0.001, hp ¼ 0.033 F(2,1129) ¼ 43.43, P < 0.001, hp ¼ 0.071
Sense of connection was measured on a 1–7 scale in Form A and a 1–5 scale in Form B. Post-hoc Scheffe tests indicated that for both measures, mean ratings for all three groups were significantly different from one another (P < 0.01).
point scale [SD ¼ 1.12]). On Form A, visitors’ sense of connection to nature was also somewhat strong with a mean of 5.23 on a 7-point scale (SD ¼ 1.58). In addition, both measures were found to be highly related to visitors’ frequency of visiting zoos and aquariums (see Table 2). That is, the more frequently someone visited a zoo or aquarium, the stronger their sense of connection was with animals or nature. To explore the relationship between visitors’ connection to nature with their other ratings related to global warming on Form A, we computed bi-variate Pearson correlations. Table 3 displays the Pearson coefficients for all comparisons. Visitors’ feelings of connection to nature had mild to moderate positive correlations to their thoughts and feelings about global warming such that the stronger their sense of connection to nature, the greater their involvement with global warming. Visitors’ sense of connection was also
positively associated with their perspective that individual citizens should do more to address global warming and that global warming should be a priority for their country. Finally, visitors’ sense of connection to nature had a positive correlation with their various zoo and aquarium experiences; their trustworthiness of zoos and aquariums as a source of information on global warming; and their own environmental behaviors concerning protecting and preserving local wildlife habitats, supporting conservation organizations, and engaging in conservation efforts during their daily activities. We also explored the relationships between visitors’ sense of connection to zoo animals and their other ratings on Form B using bi-variate Pearson correlations. Once again, there were consistent mild positive correlations between visitors’ sense of connection and their awareness of the consequences of climate change, their concern about the effects of climate change, and their own belief that they can
TABLE 3. Pearson’s correlations with sense of connection to nature (Form A) Items Cognitive involvement How much had you thought about global warming before today?* When I am at a zoo or aquarium I am interested in finding out more about how global warming is affecting wildlife and their natural habitats Emotional involvement How worried are you about global warming?* How much do you think global warming will harm you personally?* How important is the issue of global warming to you personally?* How much do you think global warming will harm future generations of people?* Sense of responsibility Do you think citizens themselves should be doing more or less to address global warming?* Zoo experiences I enjoy discussing the exhibit signs and displays with my family or companions while I am at a zoo or aquarium I use my visits to zoos or aquariums as a chance to talk to my family or companions about our relationship to nature Seeing animals at a zoo or aquarium makes me think about my concern for animals in the wild Social implications Do you think global warming should be a low, medium, high, or very high priority for your country?* Zoos and aquariums are trustworthy places to find out how to help reduce the effects of global warming Environmental behavior scale
Connection to Nature 0.25 0.43 0.24 0.15 0.29 0.17 0.14 0.46 0.55 0.48 0.19 0.43 0.37
All coefficients are significant at P < 0.001. *Item taken from the “Six Americas” study.
Zoo Biology
390 Luebke et al. TABLE 4. Pearson’s correlations with sense of connection to zoo animals (Form B) Items
Connection to Zoo Animals
Cognitive involvement Awareness of climate change consequences Emotional involvement Overall concern about the effects of climate change Personal implications How much of an impact do you believe you can have personally on addressing climate change? Social implications Talk to others about the importance of addressing climate change Donate money to a conservation or environmental group Sign a petition or take political action for a conservation cause
0.21 0.21 0.22 0.26 0.16 0.18
All coefficients are significant at P < 0.001.
personally have an impact on addressing climate change (see Table 4). Visitors’ sense of connection with animals was also related to their own current behaviors such that the stronger their feelings of connection to animals, the more often they talked to others about climate change, donated money to an environmental group, and signed a petition or took political action for a conservation cause. Notably, the strongest positive correlations with sense of connection were with social interactions: talking to others about one’s relationship with nature (Form A) or talking with others about climate change (Form B). Finally, we found that visitors who indicated they wanted to do more to address climate change had a significantly higher average rating for their sense of connection with zoo animals (M ¼ 3.51, SD ¼ 1.09) than visitors who did not want to do more to address climate change (M ¼ 2.92, SD ¼ 1.25) (t ¼ 5.06, df ¼ 1133, P < 0.001, Cohen’s d ¼ 0.503). Research Question 3: Do South American Zoos Provide Visitors with Socially Supportive and Motivating Contexts for Discussions and Responses to Climate Change? Approximately 42% of zoo visitors indicated that “most” or “all” of their friends share their views on global warming. We found that the amount of friends visitors had who shared their views on global warming was statistically related to their various zoo experiences such as: (1) visitors’ own enjoyment in discussing exhibit signs and displays with their family/companions (r ¼ 0.22, P < 0.001); (2) visitors’ interest in finding out more about global warming (r ¼ 0.17, P < 0.001); and (3) visitors using their zoo visits as a chance to talk with their family/companions about their relationships with nature (r ¼ 0.15, P < 0.001). Most visitors also tended to report very positive socially supportive and motivating contexts for discussions related to wildlife, nature, and global warming while at zoos or aquariums, as well as a high degree of trust in zoos as sources of global warming information (see Table 5).
Zoo Biology
Research Question 4: Are There Perceived Obstacles to Engaging in Climate Change Action Among South American Zoo Visitors? A total of 81% of zoo visitors believed they can personally have “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of impact on addressing climate change. In contrast, a substantial proportion of zoo visitors hold a pessimistic view of whether other people in general will do what is needed. Fifty percent believe “it is unclear at this point whether we will do what is needed”; and another 14% believe “people are not willing to change their behavior.” We also found that while most visitors have a heightened awareness of various climate change threats, visitors tended to have a spatial bias [e.g., Schultz et al., 2014] such that they perceived climate change as a slightly more distant threat. A paired t-test found that visitors had a stronger agreement that climate change threatens the survival of species worldwide (M ¼ 6.50, SD ¼ 1.17) than they do that it threatens the survival of local wildlife in their region (M ¼ 6.27, SD ¼ 1.32) (t ¼ 7.47, df ¼ 1016, P < 0.001, Cohen’s d ¼ 0.234). Finally, almost all zoo visitors (89%) reported they would like to do more to address climate change, but they also indicated various barriers related to engaging in climate change behaviors. Of those that wanted to do more, 89% indicated at least one barrier to their climate change mitigation behaviors. As shown in Table 6, the most frequently indicated barrier was the uncertainty about the actions that would be effective. Other barriers to action noted by zoo visitors include: the necessary actions would cost too much money or would be too time consuming, and uncertainty that their actions would make a difference. DISCUSSION Despite the variability of social, economic, and geographic characteristics across South American countries, the vast majority of respondents in our sample agree that climate change is happening and is caused by human actions. Moreover, most visitors are highly concerned about the effects of climate change, believe it is presently harming
South American Zoo Visitors 391 TABLE 5. Zoo and aquarium experiences (Form A) Percent of Top 2 Ratingsa
Items Seeing animals at a zoo or aquarium makes me think about my concern for animals in the wild.
76%
When I am at a zoo or aquarium I am interested in finding out more about how global warming is affecting wildlife and their natural habitats. I use my visits to zoos or aquariums as a chance to talk to my family or companions about our relationships to nature. Zoos and aquariums are trustworthy places to find out how to help reduce the effects of global warming.
69%
I enjoy discussing the exhibit signs and displays with my family or companions while I am at a zoo or aquarium. a
66% 59% 49%
M (SD) 6.11 (1.46) 5.87 (1.60) 5.80 (1.61) 5.49 (1.80) 5.13 (1.86)
Percent rating a 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale (7 ¼ Very much so; 4 ¼ Somewhat; 1 ¼ Not at all).
people in their country, and want to do more to address it. The high level of trust visitors have in zoos as sources of climate change information, along with their social enjoyment in conversing about exhibits and their relationships to nature, suggest the strong potential for zoos in South America to include climate change education within exhibit interpretation of the living collection. Overall, respondents’ sense of connection with animals and nature is associated with overall concern about the effects of climate change, a desire to do more to address it, the extent to which they talk to others about the importance of addressing climate change, and perception that they can have a personal impact. Interestingly, although direct comparisons are difficult because of demographic and regional differences in the samples, previous research in the United States [Clayton et al., 2014] using similar questionnaires with zoo visitors found a lower average level of concern about climate change and a lower average level of connection to nature than compared to the current sample. The correlational relationship in the United States between environmental concern and connectedness was, however, almost identical to that in the current sample, suggesting a possible common affective attribute among zoo visitors. Zoos, therefore, can build upon visitors’ engagement with their animal collection in order to foster communities with the capacity to engage in actions that
TABLE 6. Would you like to do more to address climate change? If yes, what is standing in your way of doing more to address climate change? (Select all that apply format) (Form B) Barriers I don’t know what actions would be effective The necessary actions would cost too much money The necessary actions are too time consuming I’m unsure if my actions will make a difference My friends or family would not support my actions The necessary actions are too inconvenient or difficult The necessary actions would make life less comfortable
Percent Checked 40.4% 18.9% 17.8% 17.4% 11.9% 7.8% 5.8%
will have a collective impact on addressing global climate change. Our findings also suggest that even this highly motivated audience has climate change learning needs. When asked what is standing in their way of doing more to address climate change, most respondents reported at least one barrier to action. These findings are consistent with other climate change studies which have found that even when people are deeply concerned about climate change and are willing to act, many experience a sense of futility in light of the barriers they face [Wolf and Moser, 2011]. In addition to perceiving climate change as a slightly more distant threat, pessimism about whether others will do what is necessary to address climate change is another obstacle perceived by respondents. The social setting of a zoo visit may belie such pessimism by encouraging the development of social norms surrounding attitudes and behavior related to climate change. As visitors talk with each other about the material they have learned, they can raise questions, evaluate evidence, pursue additional information, and develop a sense of themselves as engaged individuals. Thus, zoos have an opportunity to draw upon the social context to reinforce individuals’ inclination to address climate change and nurture local collective action, as well as ameliorate pessimism about whether humans will do what is necessary to address climate change. Finally, it should be noted that since we only surveyed visitors in a sample of zoos, the current findings may not be representative of the general populations from these, or other South American countries. In the United States sample, zoo visitors tended to be more concerned about global warming than the general public [Kelly et al., 2014]. Whether this trend is the same for South America is uncertain and additional research is needed to investigate the possible differences in climate change perceptions between zoo visitors and the general population in South America. Nevertheless, results are generally consistent with the idea that Latin American cultures emphasize a collective worldview and a high value for the natural environment [e.g., Corral-Verdugo and Pinheiro, 2009]. Zoo Biology
392 Luebke et al. CONCLUSIONS The zoo community is poised on a considerable opportunity to develop innovative approaches to climate change education for millions of zoo visitors in South America. This opportunity, however, does not need to focus on didactic information delivery about the mechanistic processes or consequences of climate change. Instead, our findings indicate that this audience, already highly receptive to engagement in this pressing environmental issue, would be better served by education resources that demonstrate effective actions, create social and family dialogues around solutions, build optimism surrounding individuals’ inclinations to be part of a local collective movement, and employ affective learning pathways that encourage visitors to make personal connections to climate change. Zoos have a unique opportunity to advocate a strong sense of caring and concern for animals whose very existence is in question due to current changes in climate which can lead to a stronger personal engagement in mitigation behaviors. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank the research assistants who collected the visitor questionnaires and the following institutions for supporting this research: Fundaci on Parque Zoologico de S~ao Paulo (S~ao Paulo, Brazil), Fundaci on Temaiken (Escobar, Argentina), Fundaci on Zool ogica de Cali (Cali, Colombia), Fundacion Zool ogica de Barranquilla (Barranquilla, Colombia), Fundaci on Zool ogico de Santacruz (Bogota, Colombia), Jardın Zool ogico de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires (Buenos Aires, Argentina), and Zoologico de Quito en Guayllabamba (Quito, Ecuador). The authors also thank Jennifer Matiasek for work in data preparation. This research was supported by the Chicago Zoological Society Animal Care and Conservation Fund. REFERENCES [ALPZA] Latin American Zoo and Aquarium Association. 2014. ALPZA members. Retrieved from http://www.alpza.com/eng/miembros.php. [AZA] Association of Zoos and Aquariums. 2014. Zoo and aquarium statistics. Retrieved from http://www.aza.org/zoo-aquarium-statistics. Ballantyne R, Packer J, Hughes K, Dierking LD. 2007. Conservation learning in wildlife tourism settings: Lessons from research in zoos and aquariums. Envirn Educ Res 13:367–383. doi: 10.1080/ 13504620701430604. Carmin J, Nadkami N, Rhie C. 2012. Progress and challenges in urban climate adaptation planning: Results of a global survey. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Retrieved from http://www.icleiusa.org/action-center/learn-fromothers/progress-and-challenges-in-urban-climate-adaptation-planning-results-of-a-global-survey. Clayton S, Fraser J, Burgess C. 2011. The role of zoos in fostering environmental identity. Ecopsychology 3:87–96. doi: 10.1089/ eco.2010.0079. Clayton S, Fraser J, Saunders CD. 2009. Zoo experiences: Conversations, connections, and concern for animals. Zoo Biol 28:377–397. doi: 10.1002/ zoo.20186. Clayton S, Luebke J, Saunders C, Matiasek J, Grajal A. 2014. Connecting to nature at the zoo: Implications for responding to climate change. Environ Edu Res 20:460–475. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2013.
Zoo Biology
Corral-Verdugo V, Pinheiro J. 2009. Environmental psychology with a Latin American taste. J Environ Psychol 29:366–374. doi: 10.1016/j. jenvp.2008.10.007. Dietz T, Gardner G, Gilligan J, Stern P, Vandenberg M. 2009. Household actions can create a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce U.S. carbon emissions. Proc Nat Acad Sci 106:18452–18456. doi: 10.1073/ pnas.0908738106. Falk JH, Dierking LD. 2010. The 95% solution. Ame Sci 98:486–493. doi: 10.1511/2010.87.486. Falk JH, Reinhard EM, Vernon CL, et al. 2007. Why zoos and aquariums matter: Assessing the impact of a visit. Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Retrieved from http://www.aza.org/uploadedFiles/ Education/why_zoos_matter.pdf. Gifford R. 2011. The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am Psychol 66:290–302. doi: 10.1037/a0023566. Gusset M, Dick G. 2011. The global reach of zoos and aquariums in visitor numbers and conservation expenditures. Zoo Biol 30:566–569. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20369. Higgins PAT. 2007. Biodiversity loss under existing land use and climate change: An illustration using northern South America. Global Ecol and Biogeogr 16:197–204. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2006.00278.x. [IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. Summary for Policymakers. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, et al. editors. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_ FINAL.pdf. Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith HC, Braman D. 2011. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J Risk Res 14:147–174. doi: 10.1080/ 13669877.2010.511246. Kelly L-AD, Luebke JF, Clayton S, et al. 2014. Climate change attitudes of zoo and aquarium visitors: Implications for climate literacy education. J Geosci Edu 62:502–510. doi: 10.5408/13-078.1. Kvaløy B, Finseraas H, Listhaug O. 2012. The publics’ concern for global warming: A cross-national study of 47 countries. J Peace Res 49:11–22. doi: 10.1177/0022343311425841. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Smith N. 2011. Global warming’s six Americas, May 2011. New Haven, CT: Yale University and George Mason University. Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Retrieved from http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/ images/files/6_Americas_May_2011_final.pdf Magrin G, Gay Garcıa C, Cruz Choque D, et al. 2007. Latin America In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, editors. Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p 581–615. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4wg2-chapter13.pdf Mann ME. 2012. Climate change science: A summary, recent updates, and resources. In Grajal A, Goldman S, editors. Climate change education: A primer for zoos and aquariums. Chicago, IL: Chicago Zoological Society. p 1–20. Retrieved from www.clizen.org Milfont T. 2012. Cultural differences in environmental engagement. In: Clayton S, editor. Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology. New York: Oxford. p 181–200. Myers OE, Jr, Saunders CD, Birjulin AA. 2004. Emotional dimensions of watching zoo animals: An experience sampling study building on insights from psychology. Curator 47:299–321. doi: 10.1111/j.2151-6952.2004. tb00127.x. Patz J, Campbell-Lendrum D, Holloway T, Foley J. 2005. Impact of regional climate change on human health. Nature 438:310–317. doi: 10.1038/ nature04188. Pew Research Center. 2009. Global warming seen as a major problem around the world. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1427/global-warming-major-problemaround-world-americans-less-concerned. Salazar LF, Nobre CA, Oyama MD. 2007. Climate change consequences on the biome distribution in tropical South America. Geophys Res Lett 34: L09708. doi: 10.1029/2007GL029695. Schultz PW. 2001. The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J Environ Psychol 21:321–339. doi: 10.1006/jevp.2001.0227.
South American Zoo Visitors 393 Schultz PW, Milfont TL, Chance RC, et al. 2014. Cross-cultural evidence for spatial bias in beliefs about the severity of environmental problems. Environ Behav 46:267–302. doi: 10.1177/0013916512458579. Swim J, Clayton S, Doherty T, et al. 2010. Psychology and global climate change: Addressing a multi-faceted phenomenon and set of challenges. A report by the American Psychological Association’s task force on the interface between psychology and global climate change. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved from http://www. apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change-booklet.pdf.
[UNDP] United Nations Development Program. 2010. Latin America and the Caribbean: A biodiversity super power. New York: UNDP. Retrieved from http://web.undp.org/latinamerica/biodiversity-superpower/Download_Reports/Policy_Brief_ENG.pdf. Wolf J, Moser SC. 2011. Individual understandings, perceptions, and engagement with climate change: Insights from in-depth studies across the world. WIREs Clim Change 2:547–569. doi: 10.1002/ wcc.120.
Zoo Biology
