ABSTRACT Human–animal interactions (HAIs) are popular in wildlife tourism, with visitors willing to pay an addition to the entry fee for “special” experiences. As prices are set for these experiences, it is unclear as to what value visitors place on them. A donation system using an HAI at Taronga Zoo (Australia) bird presentation provided an opportunity to assess how much visitors would “pay” to give money to a bird. Donation giving was tested under three treatments: (1) bird taking donations, (2) bird present but not taking donations, (3) no bird present. There was also an opportunity for donators to get a badge as a thank you for donating $5+; therefore, this study also considered two conditions: (1) with the audience receiving the message about the badge, (2) with no message, across all treatments. More visitors donated in treatment 1 than in 2 or 3, but larger donations were given when the bird was not taking donations. This was especially important with the connection of the badge messaging, as this resulted in larger donations, especially for treatment 3. The mean donation by donator was AUD$3.07 (± 1.60[SD]), but when averaged across all audience members it was only $0.34 (± 0.20[SD]). While this donation box was the most profitable in the zoo, visitors perceived the HAI to be of low “financial” value. However, this study found that an interactive experience does not need to be physical, such as giving a bird money to place in a donation box, for it to inspire donation giving. We hope to encourage empirical evaluation of incorporating animals into different zoo operations to determine whether their presence adds value or if indeed other inspirational avenues for revenue raising might be more appropriate.
Read full abstract