Keeping Wildlife Wild infographic critically examining Fresno Chaffee Zoo’s January 7, 2026, 'Scales of Engagement' research project by Molly Corley and Gail Kopperud. A central diagram distinguishes visitor attention, which was measured, from learning, empathy, conservation action and animal welfare, which were not tested. Supporting research summaries examine the limitations of live-animal educational programs, findings from 56 zoo studies, and an Oakland Zoo experiment involving 312 visitors. The infographic emphasizes the importance of measuring meaningful conservation education outcomes rather than visitor engagement alone.

WHEN ENGAGEMENT IS CALLED CONSERVATION

An AZA article reports that moving reptiles held visitors’ attention longer than stationary presentations. But attention, education, empathy and conservation are not interchangeable outcomes.
A Response To: “Scales of Engagement” — Association of Zoos and Aquariums, published January 7, 2026
The Association of Zoos and Aquariums recently highlighted a small project at Fresno Chaffee Zoo examining whether visitors responded differently when reptiles followed targets on the ground rather than remaining in furnished tubs on rolling carts.
ㅤ
The project began with a reasonable question: Would an active training session hold visitors’ attention longer than a stationary presentation?
ㅤ
According to the article, it did. Guests reportedly remained for more than five minutes during 91.5% of the targeting presentations, compared with 30% of the presentations in which a reptile remained in a tub. Visitors also took more photographs and videos and asked more questions during the targeting sessions.
ㅤ
Those findings are interesting. They are also far more limited than the conservation narrative constructed around them.
ㅤ
AZA’s article moves from increased visitor attention to assertions about fostering empathy, inspiring conservation actions and changing the lives of people and animals. But the Fresno project did not measure learning, empathy, attitude change, conservation intentions, subsequent behavior or benefits to wild reptiles.
ㅤ
It measured attention.
ㅤ
WHAT WAS ACTUALLY STUDIED?
The project involved 21 presentations, four reptiles and two locations within Fresno Chaffee Zoo. Researchers recorded cumulative visitor attendance at five-, 10- and 15-minute intervals and noted whether visitors stayed longer than five minutes, took photographs or videos, asked about training or posed what the researchers classified as a “novel” question.
ㅤ
The project did not report raw attendance data, confidence intervals or statistical tests supporting its description of the results as “significant.” Attendance was estimated, and the article does not explain whether observers followed a validated protocol or whether consistency between observers was assessed.
ㅤ
Several variables also changed simultaneously. During one condition, an animal remained in a tub on a cart. During the other, the animal moved across the ground between trainers while following a target. Targeting generally required two trainers, while the stationary presentation did not necessarily offer the same amount of movement, interpretation or human activity.
ㅤ
The project therefore cannot tell us whether visitors were responding to the reptile, the movement, the trainers, the novelty of seeing an animal on the ground or the combined theatrical qualities of the presentation.
ㅤ
Most importantly, staying longer, taking a photograph or asking a question does not demonstrate that a visitor learned something, developed empathy or later acted to protect wildlife.
ㅤ
THE DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTENTION AND CONSERVATION
The reasoning behind the article appears to follow a familiar progression:
An active animal attracts attention. Attention creates engagement. Engagement produces empathy. Empathy inspires conservation action.
ㅤ
Only the beginning of that progression was measured.
ㅤ
Visitor attention can create an opportunity for education, but it is not evidence that education occurred. Increased knowledge may influence attitudes, but neither knowledge nor attitudes necessarily produce action. Even a stated intention to help wildlife does not establish that a person subsequently changed their behavior.
ㅤ
This distinction matters because zoos frequently describe animal encounters, demonstrations and training sessions as components of their conservation mission. If conservation is the claimed outcome, conservation-related change must eventually be demonstrated rather than presumed.
ㅤ
WHAT DOES THE BROADER RESEARCH SHOW?
Other studies confirm that active animals and staff interaction can increase visitor attention.
ㅤ
A 2024 study in two free-flight aviaries at Disney’s Animal Kingdom found that visitors who spoke with staff, used bird guides or attended demonstrations remained longer than visitors who did not. The researchers appropriately described longer dwell times as creating potential opportunities for learning; they did not establish that learning or conservation action necessarily followed.
ㅤ
Similarly, a 2017 study involving eastern box-turtle cognition demonstrations found that visitors remained engaged longer during the demonstrations than during keeper interpretation alone or periods without staff. Once again, increased attention was documented, while learning and conservation behavior were not directly measured.
ㅤ
A much earlier study at Zoo Atlanta compared passive viewing, oral interpretation, otter training and training accompanied by interpretation. Training produced longer viewing times and more favorable assessments of the visitor experience. It did not demonstrate that visitors subsequently acted to protect otters or their habitats.
ㅤ
Collectively, these studies support a narrow but defensible conclusion: active animals and engaged staff can hold visitors’ attention.
ㅤ
They do not demonstrate that attention should be counted as conservation.
ㅤ
WHEN STRONGER STUDIES MEASURE MORE
Some research has gone beyond dwell time and photography.
ㅤ
In a 2025 randomized study, 300 zoo members participated in presentations involving elephants or stingrays. Participants experienced a recorded presentation, a live presentation without touching the animal or a live presentation that included touch.
ㅤ
Live presentations produced stronger immediate emotional responses, empathic concern and stated conservation intentions than recorded presentations. However, touching the animals provided no additional benefit over watching them in person without contact. Encounter format also did not produce a clear advantage in knowledge, and participants responded more strongly to elephants than to stingrays.
ㅤ
This is meaningful evidence that a live experience can influence some immediate psychological responses. It is not evidence that participants subsequently took conservation action, nor does it establish that direct contact with an animal is necessary.
ㅤ
A 2020 experiment involving 124 Brookfield Zoo members produced somewhat similar results. Participants randomly experienced a live polar-bear training session, a recording of the session or an audio presentation accompanied by a still image. The live experience generated stronger immediate knowledge, positive emotion, concern for wild bears and conservation intentions than the control presentation.
ㅤ
However, the study involved one highly charismatic species, measured immediate responses and did not document subsequent conservation behavior. The live condition also combined the animal’s presence with the sensory, social and environmental qualities of an in-person experience, making it difficult to identify precisely what caused the difference.
ㅤ
Other controlled research has produced far less supportive findings.
ㅤ
At Oakland Zoo, researchers examined 299 completed surveys associated with an illegal-wildlife-trade exhibit. Visitors encountered the exhibit before or after viewing it, with or without a trainer presenting a ball python or yellow-naped Amazon parrot.
ㅤ
Visitors gained conservation knowledge from the exhibit regardless of whether an ambassador animal was present. The animals did not improve conservation attitudes, and visitors who saw the python were more likely to describe a python as a suitable pet.
ㅤ
A 2024 series of smaller experiments involving penguins, a cheetah, a sloth and a tortoise similarly found no overall improvement in knowledge attributable to the presence of a live animal. Live animals improved attitudes toward some species and strengthened participants’ perceptions that zoos prioritize animal welfare.
ㅤ
That last finding deserves particular attention. A live animal presentation may sometimes improve public perceptions of the institution presenting the animal. That is a public-relations outcome—not necessarily a conservation outcome.
ㅤ
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER VISITORS LEAVE?
Long-term evidence remains especially limited.
ㅤ
Research involving dolphin shows and interaction programs reported immediate increases in knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions, followed by retained knowledge and self-reported conservation behavior three months later. However, interaction participants also received substantially more time with an expert, making it impossible to isolate the effect of animal contact. The behavioral results depended on what participants said they had done rather than independently verified actions.
ㅤ
A separate 2023 dolphin-interaction study reported immediate improvements in certain measures of wildlife connection and behavioral intention. Twelve weeks later, connection and conservation-caring scores had returned to baseline. Only 32 of the original 291 participants completed the follow-up assessment, and the remaining behavioral-intention measures were declining.
ㅤ
These findings do not demonstrate that live-animal experiences have no educational value. They demonstrate how difficult it is to convert a memorable encounter into measurable and lasting action.
ㅤ
WHAT THE EVIDENCE REVIEWS FOUND
A 2021 systematic review examined research on ambassador-animal encounters and identified only 19 peer-reviewed papers representing 17 unique datasets. Just two studies considered both visitor education and animal welfare.
ㅤ
Education studies frequently relied on participants’ perceptions of what they learned or tested visitors only after an encounter. Welfare studies commonly involved very few animals—the median sample was four—and measured a limited selection of welfare indicators.
ㅤ
The reviewers concluded that most of the evidence lacked methodological rigor. Claims of positive welfare were often based on the absence of detected harm rather than affirmative evidence that the animals benefited.
ㅤ
A broader meta-analysis published in Conservation Biology examined 56 studies of zoo-led interventions. It found small-to-moderate average effects on knowledge, attitudes and intentions. Live-animal interactions produced a positive average effect, but they were not significantly more effective than other types of zoo interventions.
ㅤ
More revealingly, actual behavior showed the smallest effect. Results from multi-institutional studies were substantially weaker than those from single institutions, while delayed effects were smaller and no longer statistically significant. Within-participant studies also reported much larger effects than the more conservative designs comparing different groups.
ㅤ
The meta-analysis therefore provides some evidence that zoo programs can influence visitors, especially immediately after an experience. It does not demonstrate that live animals are uniquely necessary or that these programs reliably generate enduring conservation behavior.
ㅤ
THE UNMEASURED SIDE OF THE EQUATION
The Fresno article also suggests that ground targeting provided reptiles with additional choices and therefore benefited their wellbeing. Offering animals opportunities to participate, disengage and exercise control can certainly support better welfare.
ㅤ
But the project did not conduct an animal-welfare assessment.
ㅤ
It did not report how frequently reptiles refused to load, leave their primary enclosure or follow a target; whether a refusal immediately ended their participation; or whether behavioral and physiological indicators were monitored before, during and after public presentations. It also did not examine the cumulative effects of repeated exposure to crowds, noise, movement, unfamiliar surroundings or food-reinforced performances.
ㅤ
An animal following a target is evidence of trained participation. It is not, by itself, proof of meaningful choice or improved welfare.
ㅤ
If animal use is justified through claimed educational and conservation benefits, both sides of the equation must be examined: measurable visitor outcomes and measurable consequences for the individual animal.
ㅤ
WHAT WOULD STRONGER EVIDENCE LOOK LIKE?
A credible test would compare equally timed presentations involving the same educator and conservation message, with the principal difference being whether a live animal was present. Participants would be randomly assigned, and researchers would measure knowledge, attitudes and intentions before the program, immediately afterward and several months later.
ㅤ
Most importantly, the study would measure observable conservation behavior—not simply whether visitors felt inspired or said they intended to help.
ㅤ
Animal welfare would be evaluated simultaneously using species-appropriate behavioral and physiological measures. Participation, refusals, cancellations and the animal’s ability to retreat would be documented rather than described only as voluntary.
ㅤ
The research would involve multiple institutions, animals and species and would be conducted or independently reviewed by researchers without responsibility for promoting the program.
ㅤ
ENGAGEMENT MAY OPEN THE DOOR—but IT IS NOT THE DESTINATION
The Fresno Chaffee Zoo project offers a useful preliminary observation: visitors appeared to remain longer when reptiles actively followed targets than when the animals remained in stationary tubs.
ㅤ
That finding could help staff design more engaging presentations. It could also provide the foundation for a larger, controlled study examining education, conservation behavior and animal welfare.
ㅤ
But it does not establish that the presentations created empathy, changed behavior or protected reptiles in the wild.
ㅤ
Calling an activity “conservation” does not make it conservation. Capturing attention is not the same as creating understanding, and creating understanding is not the same as producing action.
ㅤ
If zoos wish to use captive-animal presentations as evidence of their conservation mission, the responsibility is not merely to count how many visitors stopped, photographed or watched.
ㅤ
The responsibility is to demonstrate what changed—and whether wildlife ultimately benefited.
ㅤ
SELECTED SOURCES
Association of Zoos and Aquariums. “Scales of Engagement.” January 7, 2026.
Spooner, S.L., Farnworth, M.J., Ward, S.J., and Whitehouse-Tedd, K.M. “Conservation Education: Are Zoo Animals Effective Ambassadors and Is There Any Cost to Their Welfare?” Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens**, 2021.**
Barrett, L.P., and Snyder, R.J. “Impact of Animal Encounter Modality and Species on Zoo Visitor Knowledge, Concern, and Conservation Intent.” Zoo Biology**, 2025.**
Kirsch, D.G., et al. “Ambassador Animals Do Not Have a Clear Effect on Visitor Conservation Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Exotic Pets at a Zoo Exhibit.” Zoo Biology**, 2025.**
Miller, L.J., et al. “The Impact of In-Person and Video-Recorded Animal Experiences on Zoo Visitors’ Cognition, Affect, Empathic Concern, and Conservation Intent.” Zoo Biology**, 2020.**
Lyon, C.E.M., et al. “Visitor Engagement With Zoo Staff and Interpretive Demonstrations Increases Visitor Stay Time in Two Free-Flight Aviaries.” Zoo Biology**, 2024.**
Alba, A.C., et al. “A Turtle Cognition Research Demonstration Enhances Visitor Engagement and Keeper–Animal Relationships.” Zoo Biology**, 2017.**
Fischer, B., et al. “The Effects of Human–Zoo Ambassador Animal Interactions on Millennial Populations.” Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research**, 2024.**
McNally, X., et al. “A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Visiting Zoos and Aquariums on Visitors’ Conservation Knowledge, Beliefs, and Behavior.” Conservation Biology**, 2025.**