Preference for Animals: A Comparison of First-Time and Repeat Visitors
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Does the animal–visitor encounter contribute to changes in animal preference and affection?
- Do frequent animal–visitor encounters result in greater affection and preference towards animals?
2. Literature Review
3. Research Method
Data Summary and Research Background
4. Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Curtin, S. The self-presentation and self-development of serious wildlife tourists. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2010, 12, 17–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Future Market Insights. Wildlife Tourism Market Snapshot (2022–2023). Available online: https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/wildlife-tourism-sector-outlook-and-analysis (accessed on 5 July 2023).
- World Travel & Tourism Council. Global Wildlife Tourism Generates Five Times More Revenue than Illegal Wildlife Trade Annually. Available online: https://wttc.org/news-article/global-wildlife-tourism-generates-five-times-more-revenue-than-illegal-wildlife-trade-annually (accessed on 10 August 2023).
- Fennell, D.A. Tourism and wildlife photography codes of ethics: Developing a clearer picture. Ann. Tour. Res. 2020, 85, 103023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fennell, D.A. Tourism and animal rights. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2012, 37, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newmyer, S.T. Tool use in animals: Ancient and modern insights and moral consequences. Sch. Stud. Class. Antiq. 2005, 14, 3–17. [Google Scholar]
- Wilson, E.O. Biophilia and the conservation ethic. In Evolutionary Perspectives on Environmental Problems; Kellert, S.R., Wilson, E.O., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; pp. 263–272. [Google Scholar]
- Kellert, S.R. Knowledge, Affection, and Basic Attitudes toward Animals in American Society: Phase III; US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1980.
- Kellert, S.R. Urban American perceptions of animals and the natural environment. Urban Ecol. 1984, 8, 209–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Pinho, J.R.; Grilo, C.; Boone, R.B.; Galvin, K.A.; Snodgrass, J.G. Influence of aesthetic appreciation of wildlife species on attitudes towards their conservation in Kenyan agropastoralist communities. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e88842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazzoldi, C.; Bearzi, G.; Brito, C.; Carvalho, I.; Desiderà, E.; Endrizzi, L.; Freitas, L.; Giacomello, E.; Giovos, I.; Guidetti, P. From sea monsters to charismatic megafauna: Changes in perception and use of large marine animals. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0226810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Signal, T.D.; Taylor, N. Attitude to animals and empathy: Comparing animal protection and general community samples. Anthrozoös 2007, 20, 125–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Signal, T.; Taylor, N.; Maclean, A. Pampered or pariah: Does animal type influence the interaction between animal attitude and empathy? Psychol. Crime Law 2018, 24, 527–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woods, B. Beauty and the beast: Preferences for animals in Australia. J. Tour. Stud. 2000, 11, 25–35. [Google Scholar]
- Borgi, M.; Cirulli, F. Attitudes toward animals among kindergarten children: Species preferences. Anthrozoös 2015, 28, 45–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borgi, M.; Cirulli, F. Pet face: Mechanisms underlying human-animal relationships. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Colléony, A.; Clayton, S.; Couvet, D.; Saint Jalme, M.; Prévot, A.-C. Human preferences for species conservation: Animal charisma trumps endangered status. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 206, 263–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ducarme, F.; Luque, G.M.; Courchamp, F. What are “charismatic species” for conservation biologists. BioSci. Master Rev. 2013, 10, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Hosey, G.; Melfi, V.; Ward, S.J. Problematic animals in the zoo: The issue of charismatic megafauna. In Problematic Wildlife II; Angelici, F., Rossi, L., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 485–508. [Google Scholar]
- Skibins, J.C.; Powell, R.B.; Hallo, J.C. Charisma and conservation: Charismatic megafauna’s influence on safari and zoo tourists’ pro-conservation behaviors. Biodivers. Conserv. 2013, 22, 959–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skibins, J.C.; Dunstan, E.; Pahlow, K. Exploring the influence of charismatic characteristics on flagship outcomes in zoo visitors. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2017, 22, 157–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fraser, D. Science, values and animal welfare: Exploring the ‘inextricable connection’. Anim. Welf. 1995, 4, 103–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Gudiño, J.; Blanco-Penedo, I.; Gispert, M.; Brun, A.; Perea, J.; Font-i-Furnols, M. Understanding consumers’ perceptions towards Iberian pig production and animal welfare. Meat Sci. 2021, 172, 108317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lusk, J.L.; Norwood, F.B. Animal welfare economics. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2011, 33, 463–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sherwen, S.L.; Hemsworth, P.H. The visitor effect on zoo animals: Implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare. Animals 2019, 9, 366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrutia, O.; Pedrera, O.; Ortega-Lasuen, U.; Díez, J.R. Common and threatened animal identification and conservation preferences among 6 to 12 year-old students. Environ. Educ. Res. 2023, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curtin, P.; Papworth, S. Coloring and size influence preferences for imaginary animals, and can predict actual donations to species-specific conservation charities. Conserv. Lett. 2020, 13, e12723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaltenborn, B.P.; Bjerke, T.; Nyahongo, J.W.; Williams, D.R. Animal preferences and acceptability of wildlife management actions around Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Biodivers. Conserv. 2006, 15, 4633–4649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, S. Affective economies. Social Text 2004, 22, 117–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haraway, D.J. When Species Meet; University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2013; Volume 3. [Google Scholar]
- Schiffman, L.G.; Wisenblit, J.; Kumar, S.R. Consumer Behavior; Pearson Education India: Delhi, India, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Bar-Tal, D. Sequential development of helping behavior: A cognitive-learning approach. Dev. Rev. 1982, 2, 101–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeiss, A.M.; Steffen, A. Behavioral and cognitive-behavioral treatments: An overview of social learning. In A Guide to Psychotherapy and Aging: Effective Clinical Interventions in a Life-Stage Context; Zarit, S.H., Knight, B.G., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1996; pp. 35–60. [Google Scholar]
- Leroy, F.; Ramanantsoa, B. The cognitive and behavioural dimensions of organizational learning in a merger: An empirical study. J. Manag. Stud. 1997, 34, 871–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niosi, A. Introduction to Consumer Behaviour; BCcampus Open Education: British Columbia, Canada, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Nicholls, H. The Way of the Panda: The Curious History of China’s Political Animal; Pegasus Books: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Cong, L.; Newsome, D.; Wu, B.; Morrison, A.M. Wildlife tourism in China: A review of the Chinese research literature. Curr. Issues Tour. 2017, 20, 1116–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cong, L.; Wu, B.; Morrison, A.M.; Shu, H.; Wang, M. Analysis of wildlife tourism experiences with endangered species: An exploratory study of encounters with giant pandas in Chengdu, China. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 300–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, W.; Vogt, C.A.; Lupi, F.; He, G.; Ouyang, Z.; Liu, J. Evolution of tourism in a flagship protected area of China. J. Sustain. Tour. 2016, 24, 203–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, D.; Cong, L.; Wall, G. Tourists’ spatio-temporal behaviour and concerns in park tourism: Giant Panda National Park, Sichuan, China. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2019, 24, 924–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bexell, S.M.; Jarrett, O.S.; Lan, L.; Yan, H.; Sandhaus, E.A.; Zhihe, Z.; Maple, T.L. Observing panda play: Implications for zoo programming and conservation efforts. Curator Mus. J. 2007, 50, 287–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cui, Q.; Xu, H. Situating animal ethics in Thai elephant tourism. Asia Pac. Viewp. 2019, 60, 267–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krings, V.C.; Dhont, K.; Salmen, A. The moral divide between high-and low-status animals: The role of human supremacy beliefs. Anthrozoös 2021, 34, 787–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vrla, S.; Whitley, C.T.; Kalof, L. Inside the yellow rectangle: An analysis of nonhuman animal representations on National Geographic Kids magazine covers. Anthrozoös 2020, 33, 497–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baenninger, R.; Dengelmaier, R.; Navarrete, J.; Sezov, D. What’s in a name? Uncovering the connotative meanings of animal names. Anthrozoös 2000, 13, 113–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thoo, P.Y.; Johari, S.; Ismail, M.H.; Yee, L.L. Understanding the role of memorable tourism experiences in loyalty at giant panda conservation centre, Zoo Negara Malaysia. Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng. 2019, 7, 63–68. [Google Scholar]
- Ballantyne, R.; Packer, J.; Falk, J. Visitors’ learning for environmental sustainability: Testing short-and long-term impacts of wildlife tourism experiences using structural equation modelling. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 1243–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breuer, T.; Mavinga, F.B.; Evans, R.; Lukas, K.E. Using video and theater to increase knowledge and change attitudes—Why are gorillas important to the world and to Congo? Am. J. Primatol. 2017, 79, e22692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duffus, D.A.; Dearden, P. Non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation: A conceptual framework. Biol. Conserv. 1990, 53, 213–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harris, C.C., Jr.; Miller, T.A.; Reese, K. Possible influences on donation behavior: The case of Idaho’s nongame wildlife and endangered species tax checkoff fund. Soc. Nat. Resour. 1992, 5, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hehir, C.; Scarles, C.; Wyles, K.J.; Kantenbacher, J. Last chance for wildlife: Making tourism count for conservation. J. Sustain. Tour. 2022, 31, 1271–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lorden, R.; Sambrook, R.; Mitchell, R.W. Residents’ and tourists’ knowledge of sea lions in the Galápagos. Soc. Anim. 2012, 20, 342–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moriuchi, E.; Murdy, S. Increasing donation intentions toward endangered species: An empirical study on the mediating role of psychological and technological elements of VR. Psychol. Mark. 2022, 39, 1302–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tremblay, P. Tourism wildlife icons: Attractions or marketing symbols? J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2002, 9, 164–181. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, Z. Panda Base Caps Number of Visitors during Holiday. Available online: https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201909/24/WS5d89535da310cf3e3556d067.html (accessed on 15 September 2021).
- Hout, M.C.; Papesh, M.H.; Goldinger, S.D. Multidimensional scaling. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 2013, 4, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings; Pearson Educational International: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Barua, M. Lively commodities and encounter value. Environ. Plan. D 2016, 34, 725–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, Y.; Fennell, D. What makes the giant panda a celebrity? Celebr. Stud. 2023, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lupton, D. The Internet of Animals: Human-Animal Relationships in the Digital Age; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Meese, J. “It Belongs to the Internet”: Animal images, attribution norms and the politics of amateur media production. M/C J. 2014, 17, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parkinson, C. Animal stars: A critical view of creaturely celebrity. Czech Slovak J. Humanit. 2019, 2019, 40–51. [Google Scholar]
- Epley, N.; Waytz, A.; Akalis, S.; Cacioppo, J.T. When we need a human: Motivational determinants of anthropomorphism. Soc. Cog. 2008, 26, 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
No. | Factors |
---|---|
1 | Aesthetics: Animals considered cute are more attractive and, therefore, more preferred. |
2 | Aggressive behaviour: Animals that pose a perceived threat or danger to people are less liked. |
3 | Intelligence: Animals considered to possess the capacity for reason, feeling, and emotion are preferred. |
4 | Human–animal interaction: Animals interacting more with people are preferred. |
5 | Degree of freedom: Animals enjoying greater freedom are preferred. |
6 | Traditional culture of China: Animals that play an essential role in the history or culture of China are likely to be preferred. |
7 | Pet ownership: Animals that are pets or useful to humans will likely be preferred. |
8 | Willingness to donate: Preferred animals are more likely to attract donations. |
9 | Willingness to know: The public wants to learn more about the preferred animals. |
10 | Existing knowledge about the animal: The public has a deeper understanding of preferred animals. |
Have Encountered Animals | Have Not Encountered Animals | ||
---|---|---|---|
First-time visitor | Group 1a (168) | Group 2a (163) | Group a (331) |
Repeat visitor | Group 1b (169) | Group 2b (159) | Group b (329) |
Group 1 (337) | Group 2 (322) | 659 |
Preference | Scale | Preference | Scale |
---|---|---|---|
Cute | 1 | Not cute | 4 |
Aggressive | 1 | Unaggressive | 4 |
Intelligent | 1 | Unintelligent | 4 |
Interactive | 1 | Inaccessible | 4 |
Greater freedom | 1 | Restricted | 4 |
Means a lot in traditional Chinese culture | 1 | Does not | 4 |
Represents a national image | 1 | Does not | 4 |
Pet ownership | 1 | Not a pet | 4 |
Willingness to donate | 1 | Not willing | 4 |
Willingness to know | 1 | Not willing | 4 |
Has existing knowledge about the animal | 1 | Does not | 4 |
Measures | Group 1a | Group 2a | Group 1b | Group 2b | ANOVA or Kruskal–Wallis * | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Skewness | Kurtosis | Skewness | Kurtosis | Skewness | Kurtosis | Skewness | Kurtosis | ||
GIANT PANDA | |||||||||
Cuteness | 3.219 | 12.798 | 5.135 | 28.165 | 3.703 | 16.503 | 4.154 | 15.447 | K |
Unaggressiveness | 1.045 | −0.426 | 0.642 | −1.207 | 1.315 | 0.248 | 0.782 | −0.981 | A |
Intelligence | 2.017 | 2.94 | 2.105 | 3.288 | 2.095 | 3.532 | 2.426 | 5.039 | K |
Interaction with tourists | 1.71 | 1.657 | 2.115 | 3.411 | 1.676 | 1.477 | 2.644 | 6.126 | K |
A free lifestyle | 1.285 | 0.022 | 1.561 | 1.02 | 1.42 | 0.41 | 1.927 | 2.063 | A |
Chinese traditional culture | 4.209 | 17.441 | 6.153 | 43.564 | 5.573 | 34.617 | 6.317 | 42.819 | K |
Pet ownership | 3.091 | 9.195 | 2.32 | 5.141 | 3.942 | 17.614 | 2.961 | 8.72 | K |
Donation | 4.034 | 18.161 | 4.524 | 19.513 | 4.059 | 17.234 | 4.696 | 26.698 | K |
Willingness to learn | 3.768 | 15.694 | 5.1 | 28.16 | 3.485 | 12.325 | 4.911 | 27.347 | K |
Knowledge about the animal | 3.647 | 14.012 | 5.164 | 27.794 | 4.164 | 18.034 | 4.976 | 25.229 | K |
Preference | 3.176 | 10.721 | 4.748 | 24.573 | 3.103 | 9.587 | 4.837 | 23.91 | K |
RED PANDA | |||||||||
Cuteness | 1.118 | 2.148 | 1.053 | 0.051 | 1.151 | 3.371 | 1.769 | 0.35 | A |
Unaggressiveness | 0.664 | 0.124 | 0.626 | −0.331 | 0.713 | 0.33 | 0.753 | 0.593 | A |
Intelligence | 0.842 | 1.844 | 0.568 | 1.334 | 0.489 | 1.428 | 1.272 | 3.715 | A |
Interaction with tourists | 0.9 | 1.252 | 1.004 | 1.314 | 0.806 | 0.786 | 0.912 | 2.684 | A |
A free lifestyle | 0.678 | 0.763 | 0.831 | 0.677 | 0.784 | 1.489 | 1.433 | 3.326 | A |
Chinese traditional culture | 1.473 | 1.801 | 0.018 | 4.523 | 1.48 | 0.856 | 1.878 | 3.025 | A |
Pet ownership | 1.097 | 4.775 | 0.042 | 7.182 | 1.234 | 3.137 | 0.785 | 3.724 | K |
Donation | 1.189 | 4.486 | −0.178 | 10.758 | 1.666 | 5.155 | 1.635 | 6.672 | K |
Willingness to learn | 1.304 | 5.747 | −0.332 | 12.712 | 1.543 | 5.08 | 1.887 | 8.471 | K |
Knowledge about the animal | 1.374 | 5.545 | −0.247 | 12.126 | 1.665 | 3.819 | 2.103 | 5.085 | K |
Preference | 1.352 | 5.172 | −0.525 | 13.662 | 1.529 | 4.171 | 1.873 | 10.669 | K |
PEAFOWL | |||||||||
Cuteness | −0.611 | 1.419 | −0.35 | 0.134 | −0.385 | 1.466 | −0.325 | 0.411 | A |
Unaggressiveness | −0.579 | 0.291 | −0.497 | −0.149 | −0.741 | −0.021 | −0.606 | −0.503 | A |
Intelligence | −0.812 | 1.03 | −0.585 | 1.417 | −1.03 | 2.038 | −1.024 | 2.77 | A |
Interaction with tourists | −1.003 | 0.881 | −1.058 | 1.47 | −0.81 | 0.219 | −0.831 | 1.947 | A |
A free lifestyle | −1.012 | 1.081 | −0.76 | 1.021 | −0.922 | 0.485 | −1.009 | 1.647 | A |
Chinese traditional culture | −0.608 | 1.107 | −2.747 | 18.382 | −0.725 | 1.696 | −0.245 | 1.441 | K |
Pet ownership | −0.741 | 4.069 | −2.975 | 24.251 | −0.634 | 2.925 | −0.974 | 2.937 | K |
Donation * | −0.396 | 3.834 | −3.502 | 29.338 | −0.534 | 3.836 | 0.45 | 1.094 | K |
Willingness to learn * | −0.858 | 5.014 | −4.011 | 36.629 | −0.443 | 5.891 | −0.627 | 3.73 | K |
Knowledge about the animal | −1.028 | 4.915 | −4.16 | 36.698 | −1.015 | 4.282 | −0.476 | 2.667 | K |
Preference | −0.712 | 4.256 | −3.685 | 29.728 | −0.535 | 4.408 | −0.08 | 3.3 | K |
SWAN | |||||||||
Cuteness * | −1.831 | 3.594 | −1.023 | 0.03 | −1.726 | 2.685 | −1.198 | 0.781 | A |
Unaggressiveness | −1.522 | 1.141 | −1.185 | 0.067 | −1.505 | 1.273 | −1.301 | 0.569 | A |
Intelligence | −1.819 | 2.799 | −1.915 | 2.687 | −2.009 | 3.084 | −1.883 | 3.112 | K |
Interaction with tourists | −1.892 | 2.813 | −1.996 | 3.028 | −2.125 | 3.828 | −2.545 | 6.541 | K |
A free lifestyle | −1.46 | 0.684 | −1.186 | −0.217 | −1.512 | 1.005 | −1.628 | 1.372 | A |
Chinese traditional culture | −2.639 | 7.272 | −3.887 | 21.313 | −2.044 | 3.943 | −2.214 | 4.738 | K |
Pet ownership | −2.311 | 5.27 | −3.152 | 14.619 | −2.379 | 5.738 | −2.123 | 4.504 | K |
Donation | −3.14 | 10.459 | −3.297 | 14.607 | −2.498 | 6.12 | −2.341 | 5.707 | K |
Willingness to learn | −3.102 | 9.966 | −4.334 | 26.831 | −3.118 | 9.432 | −1.755 | 2.074 | K |
Knowledge about the animal | −3.609 | 14.157 | −4.072 | 21.848 | −2.816 | 7.985 | −2.297 | 5.357 | K |
Preference | −2.587 | 6.764 | −4.558 | 27.698 | −2.443 | 5.719 | −2.497 | 6.613 | K |
Measures # | Group 1a | Group 1b | Group 2a | Group 2b | Total | ANOVA | Kruskal-Wallis | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
m | SD | m | SD | m | SD | m | SD | m | SD | F | p | p | |
Giant panda | |||||||||||||
Cuteness * | 1.19 | 0.489 | 1.1 | 0.433 | 1.16 | 0.467 | 1.05 | 0.219 | 1.13 | 0.421 | 3.673 | 0.012 * | 0.002 *^ |
Unaggressiveness * | 1.82 | 1.119 | 2.06 | 1.211 | 1.69 | 1.065 | 1.94 | 1.171 | 1.88 | 1.148 | 3.328 | 0.019 * | 0.016 * |
Intelligence | 1.43 | 0.866 | 1.43 | 0.882 | 1.43 | 0.836 | 1.34 | 0.778 | 1.41 | 0.841 | 0.444 | 0.722 | 0.612 |
Interaction with tourists * | 1.53 | 0.947 | 1.4 | 0.844 | 1.53 | 0.958 | 1.31 | 0.772 | 1.44 | 0.888 | 2.325 | 0.074 | 0.050 * |
A free lifestyle | 1.7 | 1.119 | 1.57 | 0.994 | 1.64 | 1.088 | 1.46 | 0.992 | 1.59 | 1.052 | 1.627 | 0.182 | 0.062 |
Chinese traditional culture | 1.13 | 0.504 | 1.07 | 0.336 | 1.08 | 0.362 | 1.06 | 0.35 | 1.09 | 0.395 | 0.869 | 0.457 | 0.708 |
Pet ownership * | 1.25 | 0.681 | 1.15 | 0.474 | 1.32 | 0.676 | 1.26 | 0.67 | 1.25 | 0.634 | 2.135 | 0.095 | 0.043 * |
Donation | 1.15 | 0.501 | 1.13 | 0.583 | 1.15 | 0.519 | 1.1 | 0.376 | 1.13 | 0.501 | 0.373 | 0.772 | 0.445 |
Willingness to learn | 1.15 | 0.489 | 1.11 | 0.458 | 1.11 | 0.369 | 1.09 | 0.386 | 1.12 | 0.428 | 0.599 | 0.616 | 0.475 |
Knowledge about the animal | 1.18 | 0.565 | 1.1 | 0.466 | 1.14 | 0.515 | 1.07 | 0.321 | 1.12 | 0.478 | 1.767 | 0.152 | 0.067 |
Preference | 1.17 | 0.489 | 1.1 | 0.404 | 1.13 | 0.387 | 1.11 | 0.49 | 1.13 | 0.445 | 0.867 | 0.458 | 0.106 |
Red panda | |||||||||||||
Cuteness * | 2.1 | 0.686 | 2.4 | 0.798 | 2.05 | 0.6 | 2.19 | 0.608 | 2.19 | 0.689 | 8.839 | 0.000 * | 0.000 * |
Unaggressiveness | 1.99 | 0.823 | 2 | 0.896 | 2.12 | 0.815 | 1.98 | 0.783 | 2.02 | 0.83 | 0.897 | 0.398 | 0.343 |
Intelligence | 2.04 | 0.66 | 2.03 | 0.633 | 2.02 | 0.602 | 2.02 | 0.621 | 2.03 | 0.628 | 0.053 | 0.984 | 0.957 |
Interaction with tourists | 2.04 | 0.745 | 2.17 | 0.725 | 2.18 | 0.751 | 2.06 | 0.592 | 2.11 | 0.709 | 1.678 | 0.17 | 0.156 |
A free lifestyle | 2.1 | 0.731 | 2.25 | 0.746 | 2.13 | 0.651 | 2.16 | 0.572 | 2.16 | 0.68 | 1.388 | 0.245 | 0.298 |
Chinese traditional culture | 2.29 | 0.639 | 2.35 | 0.821 | 2.36 | 0.728 | 2.24 | 0.621 | 2.31 | 0.707 | 1.065 | 0.363 | 0.33 |
Pet ownership | 1.98 | 0.547 | 2.09 | 0.735 | 1.96 | 0.672 | 2 | 0.528 | 2.01 | 0.627 | 1.401 | 0.241 | 0.092 |
Donation | 2.04 | 0.54 | 2.15 | 0.669 | 2.08 | 0.561 | 2.05 | 0.501 | 2.08 | 0.571 | 1.15 | 0.328 | 0.178 |
Willingness to learn | 2.04 | 0.494 | 2.05 | 0.636 | 2.07 | 0.552 | 2.06 | 0.453 | 2.06 | 0.537 | 0.091 | 0.965 | 0.985 |
Knowledge about the animal | 2.04 | 0.517 | 2.11 | 0.648 | 2.14 | 0.61 | 2.16 | 0.569 | 2.11 | 0.588 | 1.262 | 0.286 | 0.279 |
Preference | 2.02 | 0.547 | 2.09 | 0.623 | 2.07 | 0.613 | 2.03 | 0.412 | 2.05 | 0.556 | 0.483 | 0.694 | 0.45 |
Peafowl | |||||||||||||
Cuteness | 3.07 | 0.643 | 3.09 | 0.67 | 3.13 | 0.583 | 3.24 | 0.6 | 3.13 | 0.627 | 2.373 | 0.069 | 0.082 |
Unaggressiveness | 2.76 | 0.754 | 2.64 | 0.8 | 2.69 | 0.845 | 2.64 | 0.917 | 2.68 | 0.83 | 0.773 | 0.509 | 0.591 |
Intelligence | 2.96 | 0.754 | 2.99 | 0.633 | 2.98 | 0.698 | 3.04 | 0.65 | 2.99 | 0.683 | 0.472 | 0.702 | 0.704 |
Interaction with tourists * | 2.76 | 0.754 | 2.83 | 0.717 | 2.67 | 0.791 | 2.93 | 0.638 | 2.8 | 0.733 | 3.657 | 0.012 * | 0.020 * |
A free lifestyle | 2.77 | 0.732 | 2.91 | 0.723 | 2.79 | 0.83 | 2.92 | 0.72 | 2.85 | 0.755 | 1.723 | 0.161 | 0.185 |
Chinese traditional culture * | 2.83 | 0.625 | 2.79 | 0.643 | 2.89 | 0.612 | 3 | 0.54 | 2.88 | 0.61 | 3.567 | 0.014 * | 0.014 * |
Pet ownership | 3.03 | 0.518 | 3.06 | 0.635 | 3.03 | 0.55 | 3.08 | 0.632 | 3.05 | 0.584 | 0.255 | 0.858 | 0.562 |
Donation * | 3 | 0.451 | 2.98 | 0.598 | 3.03 | 0.493 | 3.13 | 0.465 | 3.03 | 0.507 | 2.988 | 0.031 * | 0.033 * |
Willingness to learn | 3.02 | 0.495 | 3.02 | 0.572 | 3.01 | 0.408 | 3.15 | 0.542 | 3.05 | 0.509 | 2.857 | 0.036 * | 0.066 |
Knowledge about the animal | 2.96 | 0.488 | 2.96 | 0.565 | 2.94 | 0.496 | 3.03 | 0.533 | 2.97 | 0.521 | 0.915 | 0.433 | 0.36 |
Preference | 3.05 | 0.516 | 2.96 | 0.597 | 3.04 | 0.48 | 3.09 | 0.469 | 3.04 | 0.519 | 1.679 | 0.17 | 0.214 |
Swan | |||||||||||||
Cuteness * | 3.64 | 0.612 | 3.41 | 0.768 | 3.66 | 0.598 | 3.52 | 0.664 | 3.56 | 0.669 | 4.994 | 0.002 * | 0.004 * |
Unaggressiveness | 3.43 | 0.926 | 3.3 | 1.007 | 3.5 | 0.81 | 3.44 | 0.846 | 3.42 | 0.901 | 1.475 | 0.22 | 0.402 |
Intelligence | 3.57 | 0.747 | 3.55 | 0.855 | 3.58 | 0.828 | 3.6 | 0.721 | 3.57 | 0.789 | 0.119 | 0.949 | 0.901 |
Interaction with tourists | 3.67 | 0.633 | 3.6 | 0.806 | 3.62 | 0.772 | 3.69 | 0.675 | 3.64 | 0.724 | 0.653 | 0.581 | 0.864 |
A free lifestyle | 3.42 | 0.988 | 3.27 | 1.123 | 3.43 | 0.95 | 3.46 | 0.946 | 3.4 | 1.004 | 1.178 | 0.317 | 0.556 |
Chinese traditional culture | 3.76 | 0.574 | 3.7 | 0.755 | 3.67 | 0.632 | 3.7 | 0.624 | 3.71 | 0.648 | 0.477 | 0.699 | 0.503 |
Pet ownership | 3.74 | 0.558 | 3.61 | 0.812 | 3.69 | 0.656 | 3.66 | 0.654 | 3.68 | 0.676 | 1.171 | 0.32 | 0.492 |
Donation | 3.8 | 0.539 | 3.65 | 0.828 | 3.74 | 0.6 | 3.72 | 0.597 | 3.73 | 0.65 | 1.568 | 0.196 | 0.287 |
Willingness to learn * | 3.79 | 0.581 | 3.73 | 0.712 | 3.8 | 0.57 | 3.7 | 0.571 | 3.76 | 0.611 | 1.065 | 0.363 | 0.042 * |
Knowledge about the animal | 3.81 | 0.558 | 3.73 | 0.762 | 3.78 | 0.575 | 3.74 | 0.554 | 3.76 | 0.617 | 0.553 | 0.647 | 0.42 |
Preference | 3.75 | 0.587 | 3.76 | 0.719 | 3.76 | 0.562 | 3.77 | 0.53 | 3.76 | 0.602 | 0.023 | 0.995 | 0.799 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Guo, Y.; Fennell, D. Preference for Animals: A Comparison of First-Time and Repeat Visitors. J. Zool. Bot. Gard. 2024, 5, 19-35. https://doi.org/10.3390/jzbg5010002
Guo Y, Fennell D. Preference for Animals: A Comparison of First-Time and Repeat Visitors. Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens. 2024; 5(1):19-35. https://doi.org/10.3390/jzbg5010002
Chicago/Turabian StyleGuo, Yulei, and David Fennell. 2024. "Preference for Animals: A Comparison of First-Time and Repeat Visitors" Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens 5, no. 1: 19-35. https://doi.org/10.3390/jzbg5010002