The debate as to which animals are most beneficial to keep in zoos in terms of financial and conservative value is readily disputed; however, demographic factors have also been shown to relate to visitor numbers on an international level. The main aims of this research were: (1) To observe the distribution and location of zoos across the UK, (2) to develop a way of calculating zoo popularity in terms of the species kept within a collection and (3) to investigate the factors related to visitor numbers regarding admission costs, popularity of the collection in terms of the species kept and local demographic factors. Zoo visitor numbers were positively correlated with generated popularity ratings for zoos based on the species kept within a collection and admission prices (Pearson correlation: n = 34, r = 0.268, P = 0.126 and n = 34, r = ？0.430, P = 0.011). Animal collections are aggregated around large cities and tourist regions, particularly coastal areas. No relationship between demographic variables and visitor numbers was found (Pearson correlation: n = 34, r = 0.268, P = 0.126), which suggests that the popularity of a zoo's collection relative to the types and numbers of species kept is more indicative of a collection's visitor numbers than its surrounding demographic figures. Zoos should incorporate generating high popularity scores as part of their collection planning strategies, to ensure that they thrive in the future, not only as tourist attractions but also as major conservation organizations.
References
[1]
Hutchins M, Smith B, Allard R (2003) In defense of zoos and aquariums: the ethical basis for keeping wild animals in captivity. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 223: 958–966.
[2]
Turley SK (1999) Exploring the future of the traditional UK zoo. Journal of vacation marketing 5: 340–355.
[3]
Stanley Price MR (2005) Zoos as a force for conservation: a simple ambition—but how? Oryx 39: 109–110.
[4]
Gusset M, Dick G (2011) The global reach of zoos and aquariums in visitor numbers and conservation expenditures. Zoo Biology 30(5): 566–569.
[5]
Mason P (2000) Zoo tourism: the need for more research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8: 333–339.
[6]
Ward PI, Mosberger N, Kistler C, Fischer O (1998) The relationship between popularity and body size in zoo animals. Conservation Biology 12: 1408–1411.
[7]
Ward PI (2000) Zoo visitor preferences: reply to Balmford. Conservation Biology 14: 1196.
[8]
Balmford A (2000) Separating fact from artifact in analyses of zoo visitor preferences. Conservation Biology 14: 1193–1195.
[9]
Rees PA (2004) Are white lions ambassadors or conservation white elephants? International Zoo News 51: 484–489.
[10]
Morris D (1961) An analysis of animal popularity. International Zoo Yearbook 2: 60–61.
[11]
Surinova M (1971) An analysis of the popularity of animals. International Zoo Yearbook 11: 165–167.
[12]
Stokes DL (2007) Things we like: human preferences among similar organisms and implications for conservation. Human Ecology 35: 361–369.
[13]
Lorenz K (1971) Part and parcel in animal and human societies. Studies in animal and human behavior. 2. Cambridge, , MA: Harvard University Press. pp. 115–195.
[14]
Gusset M, Dick G (2010) “Building a Future for Wildlife”? Evaluating the contribution of the world zoo and aquarium community to in situ conservation. Int Zoo Yearb 44: 183–191.
[15]
Clucas B, Mchugh K, Caro T (2008) Flagship species on covers of US conservation and nature magazines. Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 1517–1528.
[16]
Okello MM, Manka SG, D'Amour DE (2008) The relative importance of large mammal species for tourism in Amboseli National Park, Kenya. Tourism Management 29: 751–760.
[17]
Davey G (2007) An analysis of country, socio-economic and time factors on worldwide zoo attendance during a 40 year period. International Zoo Yearbook 41: 217–225.
