EFA results in visitor awareness of conservation due to zoo visits
| Awareness statements | Pre-conscious awareness | Conscious awareness | Unconscious awareness |
|---|---|---|---|
| Because wildlife in zoos is housed to the highest possible standards of welfare | 0.78 | ||
| Because zoos are ethical conservation establishments | 0.76 | ||
| Because zoos ensure species-specific “natural life” in captivity | 0.73 | ||
| Because zoos provide refuge to wildlife | 0.69 | ||
| Because of the human-wildlife interaction research conducted at zoos | 0.60 | ||
| Because zoos provide a platform where visitors can admire endangered species | 0.53 | ||
| Because of wildlife behaviour and welfare research conducted at zoos | 0.49 | ||
| Since zoos prioritise wildlife health and welfare | 0.78 | ||
| Since zoos raise awareness of the status of certain species | 0.77 | ||
| Because of the zoo’s mandate towards conservation research | 0.76 | ||
| Since zoos promote other nature conservation institutions | 0.75 | ||
| Because zoos promote conservation education and learning | 0.45 | ||
| Since zoos encourage visitors to change their conservation behaviour | 0.45 | ||
| Because zoos create public awareness of wildlife conservation | 0.43 | ||
| Because zoos highlight certain animals for “entertainment value” | 0.89 | ||
| Since I feel that zoos are inherently cruel establishments | 0.79 | ||
| Since zoo animals are born and bred in captivity | 0.78 | ||
| Eigenvalues (EV) | 8.16 | 1.97 | 1.04 |
| Var. (%) | 48.01 | 11.61 | 6.11 |
| Cum. Var. (%) | 48.01 | 59.62 | 65.73 |
| Cronbach alpha | 0.87 | 0.89 | 0.79 |
| Avg, inter-item correlation | 0.49 | 0.55 | 0.56 |
| Mean value (x̄) | 3.63 | 3.68 | 3.18 |
| Awareness statements | Pre-conscious awareness | Conscious awareness | Unconscious awareness |
|---|---|---|---|
| Because wildlife in zoos is housed to the highest possible standards of welfare | 0.78 | ||
| Because zoos are ethical conservation establishments | 0.76 | ||
| Because zoos ensure species-specific “natural life” in captivity | 0.73 | ||
| Because zoos provide refuge to wildlife | 0.69 | ||
| Because of the human-wildlife interaction research conducted at zoos | 0.60 | ||
| Because zoos provide a platform where visitors can admire endangered species | 0.53 | ||
| Because of wildlife behaviour and welfare research conducted at zoos | 0.49 | ||
| Since zoos prioritise wildlife health and welfare | 0.78 | ||
| Since zoos raise awareness of the status of certain species | 0.77 | ||
| Because of the zoo’s mandate towards conservation research | 0.76 | ||
| Since zoos promote other nature conservation institutions | 0.75 | ||
| Because zoos promote conservation education and learning | 0.45 | ||
| Since zoos encourage visitors to change their conservation behaviour | 0.45 | ||
| Because zoos create public awareness of wildlife conservation | 0.43 | ||
| Because zoos highlight certain animals for “entertainment value” | 0.89 | ||
| Since I feel that zoos are inherently cruel establishments | 0.79 | ||
| Since zoo animals are born and bred in captivity | 0.78 | ||
| Eigenvalues (EV) | 8.16 | 1.97 | 1.04 |
| Var. (%) | 48.01 | 11.61 | 6.11 |
| Cum. Var. (%) | 48.01 | 59.62 | 65.73 |
| Cronbach alpha | 0.87 | 0.89 | 0.79 |
| Avg, inter-item correlation | 0.49 | 0.55 | 0.56 |
| Mean value (x̄) | 3.63 | 3.68 | 3.18 |
Notes:
*Five-point Likert scale: 1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy: 0.93; Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant [x2 (136) = 2,575.36, p < 0.05]; the variance explained was 66%
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.