- Email: [email protected]
On communicating critical issues of population management in zoos to the public
+Model
ZOOGA-3648; No. of Pages 11
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Zool. Garten N.F. xxx (2015) xxx–xxx www.elsevier.com/locate/zooga
On communicating critical issues of population management in zoos to the public Über die Vermittlung kritischer Inhalte des Populationsmanagements von Zoos an die Öffentlichkeit
Florian Schäfer ∗ Gartenstr. 14, D-35753 Greifenstein Received 8 January 2015
Abstract For many years critical issues of zoo biology and breeding management were not fully communicated by zoos, nor were they realized or questioned by the general public. This has changed within the last few decades, leading to an increase in the transparency and credibility of zoos. I conducted qualitative research on how zoos communicate critical issues to the public by using semi-structured expert interviews, focusing on the issues of euthanasia, contraception and ’carcass-feeding’. The results draw a preliminary picture of how critical issues are currently communicated in European zoos, with a focus on Germany. Zoos can be divided into three groups: (1) those who communicate critical issues directly by displaying them to the public, (2) those who prefer a more indirect way of explaining these issues, and (3) those who neglect to communicate any critical issues. A list of methods used, as well as arguments for and against communication, was extracted out of the responses of the survey group. Furthermore, a first draft for Critical Issue Management (CIM) for zoos was developed and described, using the study results as well as recommendations for crisis communication. There is a great need to conduct further research about how communication from zoos is received by visitors and the general public. Nevertheless, the results suggest that zoos need to find a basic international agreement on how to communicate critical issues as part of a multi-institutional CIM, and to establish regional communication guidelines for critical issues. Keywords: Zoo; Critical issues; Communication; Population management; Euthanasia
∗ Corresponding
author. E-mail address: [email protected]
Please cite this article in press as: Schäfer, F. On communicating critical issues of population management in zoos to the public. Zool. Garten N.F. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zoolgart.2015.03.003
+Model
ZOOGA-3648; No. of Pages 11
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Schäfer · On communicating critical issues of population management
2
Introduction Zoos and their methods of keeping animals are often point of differences in public discussions, leading to strong controversies between zoo enthusiasts and anti-zoo groups. Although common misconceptions about zoos do exist (Bertram, 2004), there are indeed other issues about zoos which can be critically scrutinized and discussed within society (Rees, 2011). For many years management practices of captive breeding and other issues such as animal transportation and medication were not communicated by zoos or questioned by the general public (Lindburg, 1991; Revers, 2003). Nowadays with increasing ecological awareness and globalisation, these topics have gained in importance, not least driven by broad anti-zoo campaigns and sensationalism in social media (Wrzesinski, 2013; Steinke, 2014a). In this way public attention has been drawn to critical issues of zoo management. These critical issues are often of a controversial nature (Martys, 2003) and, due to biological/veterinarian, legal or ethical aspects, valued very differently by the public. They cannot necessarily be deduced by an inexperienced visitor without background knowledge. In case of captive breeding management important critical issues include euthanasia and the regulation of reproduction physiology known as contraception (commonly hormonal). Carter and Kagan (2013) point out that dealing with surplus animals is the “most sensitive public relation issue” zoos have to face in modern times. They state that, for most people without professional backgrounds, these topics seem to be incongruent to the ideals that zoos represent. Certainly there are more critical issues zoos faces. Some zoos provide food to carnivores in a more natural way, by using bodies or body parts of other, euthanized zoo animals. So-called ‘full body feeding’ or ‘carcass feeding’ is a sensitive topic that is often met with incomprehension (Hancocks, 1980), even though it affects animal welfare positively (McPhee, 2002; Bashaw, Bloomsmith, Marr, & Maple, 2003; Depauw et al., 2012). Due to negative feedback several zoos have stopped this form of feeding in view of visitors (Rees, 2011). Communicating these issues to zoo visitors and the general public has the potential to create strong ethical debates. Nevertheless, some zoo-professionals see it as their duty to bring critical issues to the public (Revers, 2003; Stauffacher, 2003). Referring to the World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy, founded in 1993, Rübel (2003, p. 25) claimed during a regional meeting of the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA), that zoos should promote a nature-centred view, while taking into account the anthropocentric view of visitors. At a glance differences between articles in the media and the public announcements of zoos suggest strong differences in perception of the methods used by zoos (Kaufman, 2012; Hunn, 2014). Up till now only a few scientific studies have been undertaken to focus on how the communication of critical issues in zoos works. Therefore the present study aims to answer the following questions, with a focus on the issues euthanasia, contraception, and carcassfeeding. • How, and for what purpose do zoos currently communicate critical issues to the public? • Are there any differences or similarities between current approaches on the communication of critical issues? Please cite this article in press as: Schäfer, F. On communicating critical issues of population management in zoos to the public. Zool. Garten N.F. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zoolgart.2015.03.003
+Model
ZOOGA-3648; No. of Pages 11
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Schäfer · On communicating critical issues of population management
3
By answering these questions the overall objective is to create a more detailed understanding of the general communication of critical issues and to prepare this topic as a basis for further analysis.
Methods Experimental Design The survey for the present study was conducted between February and June 2014. A survey group of five zoo professionals (Tab. 1) was consulted by using guided, semi-structured expert interviews as described by Gläser and Laudel (2009). Lamnek (2010) states, those expert interviews refer to clearly defined details of reality. In this study these are the critical issues as well as their communication to visitors and the general public. Zoo professionals as experts were chosen from those who had already experienced the communication of critical issues or excelled through their comments in the public debate. The survey involved zoo directors as well as zoo educators, and took account of smaller zoos and wildlife parks as well as bigger zoos to illustrate a wide range of positions and background information. The questionnaire comprised of ten questions with up to six side issues or annotations. The basic structure of the questionnaire was not changed during the interviews. Four of five interviews were carried out face-to-face, using a Zoom H2n Handy Recorder. In Wildpark Eekholt the interview was conducted via the messenger software Skype and recorded using MP3 Skype Records 4.4. All interviews involved an initial talk about the background and main topic of the study. All zoo professionals agreed to a recorded nonanonymous interview. Data Analysis I chose the Thematic Qualitative Text Analysis described by Kuckartz and McWhertor (2014) for data analysis. The recorded interviews were transcribed using a simple transcription system provided by Dresing and Pehl (2011) and the content-analysis-software F4. Table 1.
Interviewed experts within the survey group.
Zoo Professional
Institution
Institutional Function
Dr. Dag Encke Britta Löbig
Tiergarten Nürnberg Vogel- und Naturschutztierpark Herborn Wildpark Eekholt Zoo Frankfurt Køpenhavn Zoo
Leading Director Zoo Educator
Ute Kröger Prof. Dr. Manfred Niekisch Bengt Holst
Zoo Educator Leading Director Vice Director and Director of Research and Conservation
Please cite this article in press as: Schäfer, F. On communicating critical issues of population management in zoos to the public. Zool. Garten N.F. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zoolgart.2015.03.003
+Model
ZOOGA-3648; No. of Pages 11
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Schäfer · On communicating critical issues of population management
4
Main thematic categories were built up in a multi-stage procedure, on basis of the questions in the interview questionnaire. Coding followed the simple coding rules described by Kuckartz and McWhertor (2014) using the software F4 Analyse. Finally, interpretation of the coded units was done by an evaluation along the main thematic categories.
Results Necessity of Communication Overall no one within the survey group doubted the necessity of communicating critical issues to the public, though nearly all participants knew institutions that prefer not to communicate these topics. The different arguments for and against mediation should be compared with each other in the following passages: Transparency vs. negative image
Talking about critical issues is expedient for a transparent institution, by bringing individual management practices at a factual level to the public. However, the fear exists that dealing with topics concerning death and dying at the zoo would lead to a negative image. According to the consulted zoo-professionals some zoos claim to teach visitors to love nature and living beings without showing the ‘disgusting’ aspects of life. This “disneyfication” of nature was criticized sharply by all participants within the survey group, even though the number of those institutions seems to be – along the experts statements – quite high in Europe and especially in North America. Eliminate mysteries vs. showing only what visitors wish
Another argument against communication is somehow the will of visitors not to be confronted with critical issues, the feeding of carcasses for example. Thus the experts in the survey group had different opinions on how to communicate (see Methods of communicating critical issues and their limits); they pointed out the necessity of raising awareness of population management in zoos, and to eliminate the existing mysteries and misconceptions of critical issues. Creating acceptance vs. respecting cultural differences
According to Dr. Encke, zoos should aim for a societal discourse, which leads to acceptance and – within Germany – the legitimacy of management methods such as euthanasia on legal level. Of course, cultural attitudes among countries and regions differ. Public positions towards critical issues vary with the underlying norms and values of respective societies, and different approaches must be addressed in different ways by zoos. One problem with handling the sceptical stance towards critical issues is that only very few issues have been published as background information for the public, politicians and other decision-makers. This situation makes the necessity of communication even more important. Please cite this article in press as: Schäfer, F. On communicating critical issues of population management in zoos to the public. Zool. Garten N.F. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zoolgart.2015.03.003
+Model
ZOOGA-3648; No. of Pages 11
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Schäfer · On communicating critical issues of population management
5
Education vs. excessive effort
Most participants stated that dealing with critical issues is part of the educational mandate of zoos. But in fact, dealing with those topics is massively dependent on time and human resources. As zoos have to deal with the questions they have raised, some zoos seem to restrain communication due to their lack of capacity for confrontations for both visitors and the media. Methods of communicating critical issues and their limits The methods used to communicate critical issues can be classified into two types, depending on their interactive or static origin (Fig. 1). Static methods are typical methods used to give information without binding active personnel: sign posts, guide books, flyers, magazines and a website. This entire media is more or less stagnant and the visitor has to interpret the information in their own way. In contrast, interactive methods involve the engagement of personnel in events such as feeding presentations or guided walks through the zoo. Within the survey group static methods played a rather subordinate role in communicating critical issues, because complex issues may not be communicable in a few sentences. It’s also difficult to address a heterogeneous group of zoo visitors that have different ethical backgrounds and ages. Nevertheless, there are examples for the use of signs in the communication of critical issues: Tiergarten Nürnberg and Køpenhavn Zoo both use signs as well as guidebooks and newsletters to inform about those issues in detail. Individual explanations are meant to be more important to express critical issues to the public than standardized and precast answers. They can be addressed either in a direct way, by showing the issue itself, or by communicating about them, without presenting in detail. A third way described by the survey group is the integration of the visitor into critical processes. However, all ways are embedded in a communication context, with varying intensity of contact between the transmitter and receiver of the messages. Contact to visitors and the public differs highly, from short points of contact with daily zoo visitors, to intensive communication of topics to participants of multi-daily courses. On the internet, it’s possible to work interactively with social media, such as Facebook, Twitter or other services. It must be ascertained how these services can be helpful in communicating critical issues. Dr. Encke states that websites should be a replacement for static printed media such as newsletters, giving detailed information about critical issues, whereas social media should just link to the website in cases of critical issues or specific
Fig. 1. Methods used to communicate critical issues.
Please cite this article in press as: Schäfer, F. On communicating critical issues of population management in zoos to the public. Zool. Garten N.F. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zoolgart.2015.03.003
+Model
ZOOGA-3648; No. of Pages 11 6
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Schäfer · On communicating critical issues of population management
events concerning them. The real short currency of articles in social networks raises the question of if high expenditures are justified. Despite the agreement on the necessity of communication of critical issues the methods which are used have clear limits. There are some factors clearly influencing the answers for the question: ‘how far should zoos go when communicating critical issues with the public?’ Holst states that in Køpenhavn Zoo the limits of communicating critical issues are built less on the need of visitors but more on animal welfare. Integrating visitors into situations that would lead to increased stress for the animals is not recommended. Another fundamental factor is majority support by the public. Dr. Encke states that zoos have basically two possibilities concerning this matter: To be influenced by the public attitude or to create public opinion by means of communication. Both ways indicate different possibilities to deal with critical issues. Flexing to public opinion would mean only communicating those methods which are approaching mainstream, whereas trying to create or influence the public opinion could include different approaches which include the visitor. Prof. Dr. Niekisch, however, raised concerns that using “sledgehammer approaches”, such as public dissections, would be contrary to the educational mandate of zoos. The critical issues focused on in the present study are communicated differently: Euthanasia is always communicated verbal and certainly not directly. There is a strong agreement within the survey group that killing an animal in the presence of visitors is not suitable, as it is stressful for both the staff and animal involved. Kröger gives an example of a more or less direct way of communicating euthanasia by using the taxidermically prepared skin of a wolf (Canis lupus), euthanized for management reasons, to explain the decision and related topics. Public dissections are another way of dealing with euthanasia, giving the opportunity for visitors to learn a range of additional information about animal physiology and anatomy. Contraception is communicated verbally to visitors, but mainly because of the lack of ideas on how to communicate it directly. Including the public is either stressful for animals or not reasonable, because medication is often administered by food or by other means. A typical method used is a verbal explanation, for example during zoo tours or feeding presentations. One example for static communication of this issue is a newsletter article in Nuremberg, describing the backgrounds of this management method. Carcass feeding on the other hand is mostly explained directly. It can be a transmitter for both itself as critical issue and for explaining other issues such as euthanasia and contraception, which cannot be easily communicated directly. The details explained above indicate strong differences in how critical issues are communicated and which methods are suitable for mediation, though all surveyed zoo professionals are emphatic about the necessity of communication.
Strategic approach Some responses implicate a specific way to deal with critical issues and the public, mainly supported by both, Dr. Encke and Holst (Fig. 2): The scheme is to utilize pre-emptive communication of a specific management tool (such as euthanasia or contraception) before this tool is used the first time, thereby informing on Please cite this article in press as: Schäfer, F. On communicating critical issues of population management in zoos to the public. Zool. Garten N.F. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zoolgart.2015.03.003
+Model
ZOOGA-3648; No. of Pages 11
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Schäfer · On communicating critical issues of population management
7
Fig. 2. Simple strategy for communicating critical issues.
a neutral basis that is relatively free of emotions. If it’s getting necessary to make use of this specific management tool through a recent event, active medial support and accompaniment is obligatory. From this moment the critical issue is constantly refurbished in the media to achieve increasing awareness of the issue and the related context. In the case of growing indignation a recent event can turn into a crisis which should then be answered by specific crisis management avoiding switching to a defensive stance.
Discussion The results of the qualitative analysis indicate that the topic ‘Communication of critical issues’ is highly complex, as the way to deal with critical issues has not yet been clarified either in Germany or the rest of Europe. Rübel’s (2003) claims of communicating a naturecentred view to visitors of zoological gardens seems to be a particularly demanding task of modern zoo biology, especially in critical and highly emotional issues such as euthanasia. Hucklenbroich (2014) states in a recent newspaper article that zoos focused neither on a romantic view of life or one that emphasised the concept of eat and be eaten in the wild. Rather animals were used as role models or identification figures with high emotional value. Due to a lack of information, visitors and the public now react indignantly if those figures are killed, fed to other animals or harmed in any way. The way how zoos deal with critical issues is a question of how the educational mandate of zoos should be met. This is not a single zoo mission; it’s an overall international problem that zoos everywhere have to face, irrespective of size, focus or numbers of visitors. It seems as though the public (and especially critics of zoos) do not judge each zoo as an individual institution, but more as a part of a larger zoo community. A crisis kicked off by one zoo Please cite this article in press as: Schäfer, F. On communicating critical issues of population management in zoos to the public. Zool. Garten N.F. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zoolgart.2015.03.003
+Model
ZOOGA-3648; No. of Pages 11 8
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Schäfer · On communicating critical issues of population management
Fig. 3. Simple scheme of Critical Issue Management (CIM).
could affect other zoos as well. If that is true – and it should be evaluated – it is even more important to face issues using inter-institutional cooperation. Taking the strategic approach described by Encke, zoos could benefit in their communication by establishing Critical Issue Management (CIM) in accordance to Issue Management described by Löffelholz and Schwarz (2007), considering the study results as well as recommendations of crisis communication (Burkart, 2010; Steinke, 2014b). A concrete concept of CIM is a communication strategy for acute crises as well as a plan for providing preemptive communication of specific issues (Fig. 3). The pre-emptive communication aims to influence public opinion, creating awareness of a zoo-specific problem and how the zoo tries to solve it. This happens via three stages described by Burckart (2010): explaining to the public what legitimises the specific critical issue (1), before starting a public discussion, and without having the emotional context of a current incidence (2). In some cases stronger discussions (discourses) with the public or parts of it might be necessary (3). This process gives supporters an argument and creates a chance to inform about the policy for future plans. Changes or effects on the public opinion about a critical issue must be evaluated and analysed. The communication strategy is ideally based on this evaluation of pre-emptive communication processes, using the experiences, fears and questions of the public so that reactions can be fast and comprehensive via pre-defined resources if necessary. In case that a communicated critical issue becomes reality (for example euthanasia) there are two possibilities: either there is no further discussion and a wide agreement by the broader public or indignation (even of smaller groups) causes an acute crisis. In the case of a crisis zoo-professionals could access pre-defined resources due to the communication strategy of the CIM. Together with the support of zoo associations the active crisis management starts. Such a Management of critical issues could give zoos the ability to address those topics actively, rather than just reacting to agitations from anti-zoo groups. The present study shows that zoos are still far from a connecting communication strategy. Specific communications guidelines like those that already exist for economic institutions have still Please cite this article in press as: Schäfer, F. On communicating critical issues of population management in zoos to the public. Zool. Garten N.F. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zoolgart.2015.03.003
+Model
ZOOGA-3648; No. of Pages 11
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Schäfer · On communicating critical issues of population management
9
not been published for zoos. In the light of growing criticism there is an urgent need for action. Naturally a qualitative study offers no possibilities to make substantiated statements for the entire European zoo community, especially not for those that are not members of zoo associations. Thus, the results have to be treated with regard to their qualitative character and not necessarily represent a complete list of the methods used for communication. Nevertheless, the results can be seen as representative of the current attitudes of zoo-professionals and outline the range of opinions and ideas they share within the community. However, the study only covered zoos that aimed for the communication of critical issues. Institutions that prefer to avoid the presence of these issues in the public were often mentioned by the survey group. According to Holst some zoos, especially those in France, act contrary to the ‘Euthanasia Statement’ of EAZA (2011). The stated responsibility to support other EAZA-Members in communication of euthanasia within legal framework has not been met in the past. Several enquiries were sent to the French Zoo Association (AfdPZ) for the purposes of the current study, but no response was received. When contacted via email, a professional of a French zoo immediately rejected any participation in this study. For future studies, it could be one approach to focus on institutions that are afraid to communicate critical issues, if it is possible to meet with zoo-professionals for anonymous interviews. Further research is urgent to gain the most accurate image of the topic. By triangulation of qualitative as well as quantitative methods the findings can help to build an appropriate communication structure for zoos. We need international examinations beyond the borders of Europe. For example, the difference between Europe and North America in captive breeding management could be evaluated as well as the handling of critical issues in other regions, such as Asia, Africa, South America or Australia. Zoo associations as well as individual zoos can profit by the results of such research projects through adaptation to any particular requirement on a continental, national or regional scale. In this context the method of the present study is useful for differentiating opinions and building a solid base for discussion. On the other side greater detail may be necessary: the reaction of visitors or the general public to different methods could also be evaluated. Can we prove that interactive methods work better to communicate critical issues, as opposed to static methods? How should zoo-professionals address the different target groups? How big is the information range of different methods? These questions can build on existing results and help to increase the effectiveness of critical issue management and preventive communication. The present study is an extract and summary on a thesis (Schäfer, 2014). The full sized report (in German) can be downloaded under http://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 271906735.
Acknowledgments I am grateful to Prof. Dr. Hans-Peter Ziemek, Institute for Didactics of Biology, Justus Liebig University Gießen, Germany and his working group for assistance in designing the questionnaire and for advice about conducting expert interviews. I thank the zoo directors Please cite this article in press as: Schäfer, F. On communicating critical issues of population management in zoos to the public. Zool. Garten N.F. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zoolgart.2015.03.003
+Model
ZOOGA-3648; No. of Pages 11 10
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Schäfer · On communicating critical issues of population management
and educators, who were willing to support this project. Finally, I wish to thank Joe Kelly, Dr. Uwe Peters, Lukas Gross, Kirstin Ringkowski, Ilka Tramm and Nadja Schäfer for their comments on this manuscript.
References Bashaw, M. J., Bloomsmith, M. A., Marr, M. J., & Maple, T. L. (2003). To hunt or not to hunt? A feeding enrichment experiment with captive large felids. Zoo Biology, 22, 189–198. Bertram, B. (2004). Misconceptions about zoos. Biologist, 51, 199–206. Burkart, R. (2010). Verständigungsorientierte Öffentlichkeitsarbeit. In W. Hömberg, D. Hahn, & T. B. Schaffer (Eds.), Kommunikation und Verständigung. Theorie – Empirie – Praxis. Festschrift für Roland Burkart (pp. 17–37). 1. Auflage Wiesbaden: VS, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Carter, S., & Kagan, R. (2013). Management of “Surplus” Animals. In D. G. Kleiman (Ed.), Wild mammals in captivity. Principles and techniques for zoo management (2. ed., pp. 263–267). Chicago, Ill: Univ. of Chicago Press. Depauw, S., Hesta, M., Whitehouse-Tedd, K., Stagegaard, J., Buyse, J., & Janssens, G. P. J. (2012). Blood values of adult captive cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) fed either supplemented beef or whole rabbit carcasses. Zoo Biology, 31, 629–641. Dresing, T., & Pehl, T. (2011). Praxisbuch Transkription. Regelsysteme, Software und praktische Anleitungen für qualitative ForscherInnen. 2. Auflage, Sept. 2011. Marburg: Eigenverlag. EAZA (2011). Online in Internet: URL: http://www.eaza.net/about/Documents/EAZA%20Euthanasia%20 statement.pdf (Access: 02.08.2014). Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2009). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. 3. Auflage. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Hancocks, D. (1980). Bringing nature into the zoo: Inexpensive solutions for zoo environments. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems, 1, 170–177. Hucklenbroich, C. (2014). Identifikationsfiguren frisst man nicht. In Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 2/19/2014. Online in Internet URL: http://www.faz.net/-gqz-7mj96, (Access: 2/19/2014). Hunn, D. (2014). Lions. What happens when zoo contraceptives work too well? In ST. Louis PostDispatch, 2/16/2014. Online in Internet: URL: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/whathappens-when-zoo-contraceptives-work-too-well/article 8e71a4c4-2cd1-58d7-b8af-8fe8eb1be30c.%E2% 80%A6 (Access: 02.19.2014). Kaufman, L. (2012). When Babies Don’t Fit Plan, Question for Zoos Is, Now What? In New York Times, 8/2/2012. Online in Internet: URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/science/zoos-divide-overcontraception-and-euthanasia-for-animals.html?pagewanted=all& r=0 (Access: 02.08.2014). Kuckartz, U., & McWhertor, A. (2014). Qualitative text analysis. A guide to methods, practice & using software. SAGE Publications Ltd. Lamnek, S. (2010). Qualitative Sozialforschung. Beltz. Lindburg, D. G. (1991). Zoos and the “Surplus” Problem. Zoo Biology, 10, 1–2. Löffelholz, M., & Schwarz, A. (2007). Die Krisenkommunikation von Organisationen. Ansätze, Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Forschung. In T. Nolting, & A. Thießen (Eds.), Krisenmanagement in der Mediengesellschaft. Potenziale und Perspektiven in der Krisenkommunikation (pp. 20–35). 1. Auflage. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Martys, M. (2003). Ergebnisse einer Besucherumfrage zum Thema: “Töten von Futter- und Zootieren”. In P. Dollinger, K. Robin, T. Smolinski, & F. Weber (Eds.), Die Bedeutung von Fortplanzung und Aufzucht von Zootieren. Verhandlungsbericht des Rigi-Symposiums (pp. 57–59). Bern: Schweiz. McPhee, M. E. (2002). Intact carcasses as enrichment for large felids: Effects on on- and off-exhibit behaviors. Zoo Biology, 21, 37–47. Rees, P. A. (2011). An introduction to zoo biology and management. Chichester, West Sussex, UK, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Revers, R. (2003). Zoo- und Wildtiermanagement. In P. Dollinger, K. Robin, T. Smolinski, & F. Weber (Eds.), Die Bedeutung von Fortplanzung und Aufzucht von Zootieren. Verhandlungsbericht des Rigi-Symposiums (pp. 26–27). Bern: Schweiz. Rübel, A. (2003). Aufgabe moderner Zoologischer Gärten und Aquarien. In P. Dollinger, K. Robin, T. Smolinski, & F. Weber (Eds.), Die Bedeutung von Fortplanzung und Aufzucht von Zootieren. Verhandlungsbericht des Rigi-Symposiums (pp. 23–25). Bern: Schweiz.
Please cite this article in press as: Schäfer, F. On communicating critical issues of population management in zoos to the public. Zool. Garten N.F. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zoolgart.2015.03.003
+Model
ZOOGA-3648; No. of Pages 11
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Schäfer · On communicating critical issues of population management
11
Schäfer, F. (2014). Über die Vermittlung kritischer Inhalte des Populationsmanagements zoologischer Gärten an die Öffentlichkeit. Bachelorthesis zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades: Bachelor of Science. Justus-LiebigUniversität Gießen. Stauffacher, M. (2003). Thesen zur verantwortungsvollen Zucht und Aufzucht von Tieren im Zoo. In P. Dollinger, K. Robin, T. Smolinski, & F. Weber (Eds.), Die Bedeutung von Fortplanzung und Aufzucht von Zootieren. Verhandlungsbericht des Rigi-Symposiums (pp. 39–40). Bern: Schweiz. Steinke, L. (2014a). Bedienungsanleitung für den Shitstorm. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Steinke, L. (2014b). Kommunizieren in der Krise. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Wrzesinski, A. (2013). Zoo 2.0 – Die optimale Unternehmensdarstellung und Kundenbindung im größten sozialen Netzwerk Facebook. Eine Untersuchung anhand von drei verschiedenen deutschen Zoo-Seiten. 1. Aufl. Münster, Westf: Schüling.
Please cite this article in press as: Schäfer, F. On communicating critical issues of population management in zoos to the public. Zool. Garten N.F. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zoolgart.2015.03.003
ZOOGA-3648; No. of Pages 11
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Zool. Garten N.F. xxx (2015) xxx–xxx www.elsevier.com/locate/zooga
On communicating critical issues of population management in zoos to the public Über die Vermittlung kritischer Inhalte des Populationsmanagements von Zoos an die Öffentlichkeit
Florian Schäfer ∗ Gartenstr. 14, D-35753 Greifenstein Received 8 January 2015
Abstract For many years critical issues of zoo biology and breeding management were not fully communicated by zoos, nor were they realized or questioned by the general public. This has changed within the last few decades, leading to an increase in the transparency and credibility of zoos. I conducted qualitative research on how zoos communicate critical issues to the public by using semi-structured expert interviews, focusing on the issues of euthanasia, contraception and ’carcass-feeding’. The results draw a preliminary picture of how critical issues are currently communicated in European zoos, with a focus on Germany. Zoos can be divided into three groups: (1) those who communicate critical issues directly by displaying them to the public, (2) those who prefer a more indirect way of explaining these issues, and (3) those who neglect to communicate any critical issues. A list of methods used, as well as arguments for and against communication, was extracted out of the responses of the survey group. Furthermore, a first draft for Critical Issue Management (CIM) for zoos was developed and described, using the study results as well as recommendations for crisis communication. There is a great need to conduct further research about how communication from zoos is received by visitors and the general public. Nevertheless, the results suggest that zoos need to find a basic international agreement on how to communicate critical issues as part of a multi-institutional CIM, and to establish regional communication guidelines for critical issues. Keywords: Zoo; Critical issues; Communication; Population management; Euthanasia
∗ Corresponding
author. E-mail address: [email protected]
Please cite this article in press as: Schäfer, F. On communicating critical issues of population management in zoos to the public. Zool. Garten N.F. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zoolgart.2015.03.003
+Model
ZOOGA-3648; No. of Pages 11
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Schäfer · On communicating critical issues of population management
2
Introduction Zoos and their methods of keeping animals are often point of differences in public discussions, leading to strong controversies between zoo enthusiasts and anti-zoo groups. Although common misconceptions about zoos do exist (Bertram, 2004), there are indeed other issues about zoos which can be critically scrutinized and discussed within society (Rees, 2011). For many years management practices of captive breeding and other issues such as animal transportation and medication were not communicated by zoos or questioned by the general public (Lindburg, 1991; Revers, 2003). Nowadays with increasing ecological awareness and globalisation, these topics have gained in importance, not least driven by broad anti-zoo campaigns and sensationalism in social media (Wrzesinski, 2013; Steinke, 2014a). In this way public attention has been drawn to critical issues of zoo management. These critical issues are often of a controversial nature (Martys, 2003) and, due to biological/veterinarian, legal or ethical aspects, valued very differently by the public. They cannot necessarily be deduced by an inexperienced visitor without background knowledge. In case of captive breeding management important critical issues include euthanasia and the regulation of reproduction physiology known as contraception (commonly hormonal). Carter and Kagan (2013) point out that dealing with surplus animals is the “most sensitive public relation issue” zoos have to face in modern times. They state that, for most people without professional backgrounds, these topics seem to be incongruent to the ideals that zoos represent. Certainly there are more critical issues zoos faces. Some zoos provide food to carnivores in a more natural way, by using bodies or body parts of other, euthanized zoo animals. So-called ‘full body feeding’ or ‘carcass feeding’ is a sensitive topic that is often met with incomprehension (Hancocks, 1980), even though it affects animal welfare positively (McPhee, 2002; Bashaw, Bloomsmith, Marr, & Maple, 2003; Depauw et al., 2012). Due to negative feedback several zoos have stopped this form of feeding in view of visitors (Rees, 2011). Communicating these issues to zoo visitors and the general public has the potential to create strong ethical debates. Nevertheless, some zoo-professionals see it as their duty to bring critical issues to the public (Revers, 2003; Stauffacher, 2003). Referring to the World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy, founded in 1993, Rübel (2003, p. 25) claimed during a regional meeting of the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA), that zoos should promote a nature-centred view, while taking into account the anthropocentric view of visitors. At a glance differences between articles in the media and the public announcements of zoos suggest strong differences in perception of the methods used by zoos (Kaufman, 2012; Hunn, 2014). Up till now only a few scientific studies have been undertaken to focus on how the communication of critical issues in zoos works. Therefore the present study aims to answer the following questions, with a focus on the issues euthanasia, contraception, and carcassfeeding. • How, and for what purpose do zoos currently communicate critical issues to the public? • Are there any differences or similarities between current approaches on the communication of critical issues? Please cite this article in press as: Schäfer, F. On communicating critical issues of population management in zoos to the public. Zool. Garten N.F. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zoolgart.2015.03.003
+Model
ZOOGA-3648; No. of Pages 11
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Schäfer · On communicating critical issues of population management
3
By answering these questions the overall objective is to create a more detailed understanding of the general communication of critical issues and to prepare this topic as a basis for further analysis.
Methods Experimental Design The survey for the present study was conducted between February and June 2014. A survey group of five zoo professionals (Tab. 1) was consulted by using guided, semi-structured expert interviews as described by Gläser and Laudel (2009). Lamnek (2010) states, those expert interviews refer to clearly defined details of reality. In this study these are the critical issues as well as their communication to visitors and the general public. Zoo professionals as experts were chosen from those who had already experienced the communication of critical issues or excelled through their comments in the public debate. The survey involved zoo directors as well as zoo educators, and took account of smaller zoos and wildlife parks as well as bigger zoos to illustrate a wide range of positions and background information. The questionnaire comprised of ten questions with up to six side issues or annotations. The basic structure of the questionnaire was not changed during the interviews. Four of five interviews were carried out face-to-face, using a Zoom H2n Handy Recorder. In Wildpark Eekholt the interview was conducted via the messenger software Skype and recorded using MP3 Skype Records 4.4. All interviews involved an initial talk about the background and main topic of the study. All zoo professionals agreed to a recorded nonanonymous interview. Data Analysis I chose the Thematic Qualitative Text Analysis described by Kuckartz and McWhertor (2014) for data analysis. The recorded interviews were transcribed using a simple transcription system provided by Dresing and Pehl (2011) and the content-analysis-software F4. Table 1.
Interviewed experts within the survey group.
Zoo Professional
Institution
Institutional Function
Dr. Dag Encke Britta Löbig
Tiergarten Nürnberg Vogel- und Naturschutztierpark Herborn Wildpark Eekholt Zoo Frankfurt Køpenhavn Zoo
Leading Director Zoo Educator
Ute Kröger Prof. Dr. Manfred Niekisch Bengt Holst
Zoo Educator Leading Director Vice Director and Director of Research and Conservation
Please cite this article in press as: Schäfer, F. On communicating critical issues of population management in zoos to the public. Zool. Garten N.F. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zoolgart.2015.03.003
+Model
ZOOGA-3648; No. of Pages 11
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Schäfer · On communicating critical issues of population management
4
Main thematic categories were built up in a multi-stage procedure, on basis of the questions in the interview questionnaire. Coding followed the simple coding rules described by Kuckartz and McWhertor (2014) using the software F4 Analyse. Finally, interpretation of the coded units was done by an evaluation along the main thematic categories.
Results Necessity of Communication Overall no one within the survey group doubted the necessity of communicating critical issues to the public, though nearly all participants knew institutions that prefer not to communicate these topics. The different arguments for and against mediation should be compared with each other in the following passages: Transparency vs. negative image
Talking about critical issues is expedient for a transparent institution, by bringing individual management practices at a factual level to the public. However, the fear exists that dealing with topics concerning death and dying at the zoo would lead to a negative image. According to the consulted zoo-professionals some zoos claim to teach visitors to love nature and living beings without showing the ‘disgusting’ aspects of life. This “disneyfication” of nature was criticized sharply by all participants within the survey group, even though the number of those institutions seems to be – along the experts statements – quite high in Europe and especially in North America. Eliminate mysteries vs. showing only what visitors wish
Another argument against communication is somehow the will of visitors not to be confronted with critical issues, the feeding of carcasses for example. Thus the experts in the survey group had different opinions on how to communicate (see Methods of communicating critical issues and their limits); they pointed out the necessity of raising awareness of population management in zoos, and to eliminate the existing mysteries and misconceptions of critical issues. Creating acceptance vs. respecting cultural differences
According to Dr. Encke, zoos should aim for a societal discourse, which leads to acceptance and – within Germany – the legitimacy of management methods such as euthanasia on legal level. Of course, cultural attitudes among countries and regions differ. Public positions towards critical issues vary with the underlying norms and values of respective societies, and different approaches must be addressed in different ways by zoos. One problem with handling the sceptical stance towards critical issues is that only very few issues have been published as background information for the public, politicians and other decision-makers. This situation makes the necessity of communication even more important. Please cite this article in press as: Schäfer, F. On communicating critical issues of population management in zoos to the public. Zool. Garten N.F. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zoolgart.2015.03.003
+Model
ZOOGA-3648; No. of Pages 11
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Schäfer · On communicating critical issues of population management
5
Education vs. excessive effort
Most participants stated that dealing with critical issues is part of the educational mandate of zoos. But in fact, dealing with those topics is massively dependent on time and human resources. As zoos have to deal with the questions they have raised, some zoos seem to restrain communication due to their lack of capacity for confrontations for both visitors and the media. Methods of communicating critical issues and their limits The methods used to communicate critical issues can be classified into two types, depending on their interactive or static origin (Fig. 1). Static methods are typical methods used to give information without binding active personnel: sign posts, guide books, flyers, magazines and a website. This entire media is more or less stagnant and the visitor has to interpret the information in their own way. In contrast, interactive methods involve the engagement of personnel in events such as feeding presentations or guided walks through the zoo. Within the survey group static methods played a rather subordinate role in communicating critical issues, because complex issues may not be communicable in a few sentences. It’s also difficult to address a heterogeneous group of zoo visitors that have different ethical backgrounds and ages. Nevertheless, there are examples for the use of signs in the communication of critical issues: Tiergarten Nürnberg and Køpenhavn Zoo both use signs as well as guidebooks and newsletters to inform about those issues in detail. Individual explanations are meant to be more important to express critical issues to the public than standardized and precast answers. They can be addressed either in a direct way, by showing the issue itself, or by communicating about them, without presenting in detail. A third way described by the survey group is the integration of the visitor into critical processes. However, all ways are embedded in a communication context, with varying intensity of contact between the transmitter and receiver of the messages. Contact to visitors and the public differs highly, from short points of contact with daily zoo visitors, to intensive communication of topics to participants of multi-daily courses. On the internet, it’s possible to work interactively with social media, such as Facebook, Twitter or other services. It must be ascertained how these services can be helpful in communicating critical issues. Dr. Encke states that websites should be a replacement for static printed media such as newsletters, giving detailed information about critical issues, whereas social media should just link to the website in cases of critical issues or specific
Fig. 1. Methods used to communicate critical issues.
Please cite this article in press as: Schäfer, F. On communicating critical issues of population management in zoos to the public. Zool. Garten N.F. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zoolgart.2015.03.003
+Model
ZOOGA-3648; No. of Pages 11 6
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Schäfer · On communicating critical issues of population management
events concerning them. The real short currency of articles in social networks raises the question of if high expenditures are justified. Despite the agreement on the necessity of communication of critical issues the methods which are used have clear limits. There are some factors clearly influencing the answers for the question: ‘how far should zoos go when communicating critical issues with the public?’ Holst states that in Køpenhavn Zoo the limits of communicating critical issues are built less on the need of visitors but more on animal welfare. Integrating visitors into situations that would lead to increased stress for the animals is not recommended. Another fundamental factor is majority support by the public. Dr. Encke states that zoos have basically two possibilities concerning this matter: To be influenced by the public attitude or to create public opinion by means of communication. Both ways indicate different possibilities to deal with critical issues. Flexing to public opinion would mean only communicating those methods which are approaching mainstream, whereas trying to create or influence the public opinion could include different approaches which include the visitor. Prof. Dr. Niekisch, however, raised concerns that using “sledgehammer approaches”, such as public dissections, would be contrary to the educational mandate of zoos. The critical issues focused on in the present study are communicated differently: Euthanasia is always communicated verbal and certainly not directly. There is a strong agreement within the survey group that killing an animal in the presence of visitors is not suitable, as it is stressful for both the staff and animal involved. Kröger gives an example of a more or less direct way of communicating euthanasia by using the taxidermically prepared skin of a wolf (Canis lupus), euthanized for management reasons, to explain the decision and related topics. Public dissections are another way of dealing with euthanasia, giving the opportunity for visitors to learn a range of additional information about animal physiology and anatomy. Contraception is communicated verbally to visitors, but mainly because of the lack of ideas on how to communicate it directly. Including the public is either stressful for animals or not reasonable, because medication is often administered by food or by other means. A typical method used is a verbal explanation, for example during zoo tours or feeding presentations. One example for static communication of this issue is a newsletter article in Nuremberg, describing the backgrounds of this management method. Carcass feeding on the other hand is mostly explained directly. It can be a transmitter for both itself as critical issue and for explaining other issues such as euthanasia and contraception, which cannot be easily communicated directly. The details explained above indicate strong differences in how critical issues are communicated and which methods are suitable for mediation, though all surveyed zoo professionals are emphatic about the necessity of communication.
Strategic approach Some responses implicate a specific way to deal with critical issues and the public, mainly supported by both, Dr. Encke and Holst (Fig. 2): The scheme is to utilize pre-emptive communication of a specific management tool (such as euthanasia or contraception) before this tool is used the first time, thereby informing on Please cite this article in press as: Schäfer, F. On communicating critical issues of population management in zoos to the public. Zool. Garten N.F. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zoolgart.2015.03.003
+Model
ZOOGA-3648; No. of Pages 11
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Schäfer · On communicating critical issues of population management
7
Fig. 2. Simple strategy for communicating critical issues.
a neutral basis that is relatively free of emotions. If it’s getting necessary to make use of this specific management tool through a recent event, active medial support and accompaniment is obligatory. From this moment the critical issue is constantly refurbished in the media to achieve increasing awareness of the issue and the related context. In the case of growing indignation a recent event can turn into a crisis which should then be answered by specific crisis management avoiding switching to a defensive stance.
Discussion The results of the qualitative analysis indicate that the topic ‘Communication of critical issues’ is highly complex, as the way to deal with critical issues has not yet been clarified either in Germany or the rest of Europe. Rübel’s (2003) claims of communicating a naturecentred view to visitors of zoological gardens seems to be a particularly demanding task of modern zoo biology, especially in critical and highly emotional issues such as euthanasia. Hucklenbroich (2014) states in a recent newspaper article that zoos focused neither on a romantic view of life or one that emphasised the concept of eat and be eaten in the wild. Rather animals were used as role models or identification figures with high emotional value. Due to a lack of information, visitors and the public now react indignantly if those figures are killed, fed to other animals or harmed in any way. The way how zoos deal with critical issues is a question of how the educational mandate of zoos should be met. This is not a single zoo mission; it’s an overall international problem that zoos everywhere have to face, irrespective of size, focus or numbers of visitors. It seems as though the public (and especially critics of zoos) do not judge each zoo as an individual institution, but more as a part of a larger zoo community. A crisis kicked off by one zoo Please cite this article in press as: Schäfer, F. On communicating critical issues of population management in zoos to the public. Zool. Garten N.F. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zoolgart.2015.03.003
+Model
ZOOGA-3648; No. of Pages 11 8
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Schäfer · On communicating critical issues of population management
Fig. 3. Simple scheme of Critical Issue Management (CIM).
could affect other zoos as well. If that is true – and it should be evaluated – it is even more important to face issues using inter-institutional cooperation. Taking the strategic approach described by Encke, zoos could benefit in their communication by establishing Critical Issue Management (CIM) in accordance to Issue Management described by Löffelholz and Schwarz (2007), considering the study results as well as recommendations of crisis communication (Burkart, 2010; Steinke, 2014b). A concrete concept of CIM is a communication strategy for acute crises as well as a plan for providing preemptive communication of specific issues (Fig. 3). The pre-emptive communication aims to influence public opinion, creating awareness of a zoo-specific problem and how the zoo tries to solve it. This happens via three stages described by Burckart (2010): explaining to the public what legitimises the specific critical issue (1), before starting a public discussion, and without having the emotional context of a current incidence (2). In some cases stronger discussions (discourses) with the public or parts of it might be necessary (3). This process gives supporters an argument and creates a chance to inform about the policy for future plans. Changes or effects on the public opinion about a critical issue must be evaluated and analysed. The communication strategy is ideally based on this evaluation of pre-emptive communication processes, using the experiences, fears and questions of the public so that reactions can be fast and comprehensive via pre-defined resources if necessary. In case that a communicated critical issue becomes reality (for example euthanasia) there are two possibilities: either there is no further discussion and a wide agreement by the broader public or indignation (even of smaller groups) causes an acute crisis. In the case of a crisis zoo-professionals could access pre-defined resources due to the communication strategy of the CIM. Together with the support of zoo associations the active crisis management starts. Such a Management of critical issues could give zoos the ability to address those topics actively, rather than just reacting to agitations from anti-zoo groups. The present study shows that zoos are still far from a connecting communication strategy. Specific communications guidelines like those that already exist for economic institutions have still Please cite this article in press as: Schäfer, F. On communicating critical issues of population management in zoos to the public. Zool. Garten N.F. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zoolgart.2015.03.003
+Model
ZOOGA-3648; No. of Pages 11
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Schäfer · On communicating critical issues of population management
9
not been published for zoos. In the light of growing criticism there is an urgent need for action. Naturally a qualitative study offers no possibilities to make substantiated statements for the entire European zoo community, especially not for those that are not members of zoo associations. Thus, the results have to be treated with regard to their qualitative character and not necessarily represent a complete list of the methods used for communication. Nevertheless, the results can be seen as representative of the current attitudes of zoo-professionals and outline the range of opinions and ideas they share within the community. However, the study only covered zoos that aimed for the communication of critical issues. Institutions that prefer to avoid the presence of these issues in the public were often mentioned by the survey group. According to Holst some zoos, especially those in France, act contrary to the ‘Euthanasia Statement’ of EAZA (2011). The stated responsibility to support other EAZA-Members in communication of euthanasia within legal framework has not been met in the past. Several enquiries were sent to the French Zoo Association (AfdPZ) for the purposes of the current study, but no response was received. When contacted via email, a professional of a French zoo immediately rejected any participation in this study. For future studies, it could be one approach to focus on institutions that are afraid to communicate critical issues, if it is possible to meet with zoo-professionals for anonymous interviews. Further research is urgent to gain the most accurate image of the topic. By triangulation of qualitative as well as quantitative methods the findings can help to build an appropriate communication structure for zoos. We need international examinations beyond the borders of Europe. For example, the difference between Europe and North America in captive breeding management could be evaluated as well as the handling of critical issues in other regions, such as Asia, Africa, South America or Australia. Zoo associations as well as individual zoos can profit by the results of such research projects through adaptation to any particular requirement on a continental, national or regional scale. In this context the method of the present study is useful for differentiating opinions and building a solid base for discussion. On the other side greater detail may be necessary: the reaction of visitors or the general public to different methods could also be evaluated. Can we prove that interactive methods work better to communicate critical issues, as opposed to static methods? How should zoo-professionals address the different target groups? How big is the information range of different methods? These questions can build on existing results and help to increase the effectiveness of critical issue management and preventive communication. The present study is an extract and summary on a thesis (Schäfer, 2014). The full sized report (in German) can be downloaded under http://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 271906735.
Acknowledgments I am grateful to Prof. Dr. Hans-Peter Ziemek, Institute for Didactics of Biology, Justus Liebig University Gießen, Germany and his working group for assistance in designing the questionnaire and for advice about conducting expert interviews. I thank the zoo directors Please cite this article in press as: Schäfer, F. On communicating critical issues of population management in zoos to the public. Zool. Garten N.F. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zoolgart.2015.03.003
+Model
ZOOGA-3648; No. of Pages 11 10
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Schäfer · On communicating critical issues of population management
and educators, who were willing to support this project. Finally, I wish to thank Joe Kelly, Dr. Uwe Peters, Lukas Gross, Kirstin Ringkowski, Ilka Tramm and Nadja Schäfer for their comments on this manuscript.
References Bashaw, M. J., Bloomsmith, M. A., Marr, M. J., & Maple, T. L. (2003). To hunt or not to hunt? A feeding enrichment experiment with captive large felids. Zoo Biology, 22, 189–198. Bertram, B. (2004). Misconceptions about zoos. Biologist, 51, 199–206. Burkart, R. (2010). Verständigungsorientierte Öffentlichkeitsarbeit. In W. Hömberg, D. Hahn, & T. B. Schaffer (Eds.), Kommunikation und Verständigung. Theorie – Empirie – Praxis. Festschrift für Roland Burkart (pp. 17–37). 1. Auflage Wiesbaden: VS, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Carter, S., & Kagan, R. (2013). Management of “Surplus” Animals. In D. G. Kleiman (Ed.), Wild mammals in captivity. Principles and techniques for zoo management (2. ed., pp. 263–267). Chicago, Ill: Univ. of Chicago Press. Depauw, S., Hesta, M., Whitehouse-Tedd, K., Stagegaard, J., Buyse, J., & Janssens, G. P. J. (2012). Blood values of adult captive cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) fed either supplemented beef or whole rabbit carcasses. Zoo Biology, 31, 629–641. Dresing, T., & Pehl, T. (2011). Praxisbuch Transkription. Regelsysteme, Software und praktische Anleitungen für qualitative ForscherInnen. 2. Auflage, Sept. 2011. Marburg: Eigenverlag. EAZA (2011). Online in Internet: URL: http://www.eaza.net/about/Documents/EAZA%20Euthanasia%20 statement.pdf (Access: 02.08.2014). Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2009). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. 3. Auflage. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Hancocks, D. (1980). Bringing nature into the zoo: Inexpensive solutions for zoo environments. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems, 1, 170–177. Hucklenbroich, C. (2014). Identifikationsfiguren frisst man nicht. In Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 2/19/2014. Online in Internet URL: http://www.faz.net/-gqz-7mj96, (Access: 2/19/2014). Hunn, D. (2014). Lions. What happens when zoo contraceptives work too well? In ST. Louis PostDispatch, 2/16/2014. Online in Internet: URL: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/whathappens-when-zoo-contraceptives-work-too-well/article 8e71a4c4-2cd1-58d7-b8af-8fe8eb1be30c.%E2% 80%A6 (Access: 02.19.2014). Kaufman, L. (2012). When Babies Don’t Fit Plan, Question for Zoos Is, Now What? In New York Times, 8/2/2012. Online in Internet: URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/science/zoos-divide-overcontraception-and-euthanasia-for-animals.html?pagewanted=all& r=0 (Access: 02.08.2014). Kuckartz, U., & McWhertor, A. (2014). Qualitative text analysis. A guide to methods, practice & using software. SAGE Publications Ltd. Lamnek, S. (2010). Qualitative Sozialforschung. Beltz. Lindburg, D. G. (1991). Zoos and the “Surplus” Problem. Zoo Biology, 10, 1–2. Löffelholz, M., & Schwarz, A. (2007). Die Krisenkommunikation von Organisationen. Ansätze, Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Forschung. In T. Nolting, & A. Thießen (Eds.), Krisenmanagement in der Mediengesellschaft. Potenziale und Perspektiven in der Krisenkommunikation (pp. 20–35). 1. Auflage. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Martys, M. (2003). Ergebnisse einer Besucherumfrage zum Thema: “Töten von Futter- und Zootieren”. In P. Dollinger, K. Robin, T. Smolinski, & F. Weber (Eds.), Die Bedeutung von Fortplanzung und Aufzucht von Zootieren. Verhandlungsbericht des Rigi-Symposiums (pp. 57–59). Bern: Schweiz. McPhee, M. E. (2002). Intact carcasses as enrichment for large felids: Effects on on- and off-exhibit behaviors. Zoo Biology, 21, 37–47. Rees, P. A. (2011). An introduction to zoo biology and management. Chichester, West Sussex, UK, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Revers, R. (2003). Zoo- und Wildtiermanagement. In P. Dollinger, K. Robin, T. Smolinski, & F. Weber (Eds.), Die Bedeutung von Fortplanzung und Aufzucht von Zootieren. Verhandlungsbericht des Rigi-Symposiums (pp. 26–27). Bern: Schweiz. Rübel, A. (2003). Aufgabe moderner Zoologischer Gärten und Aquarien. In P. Dollinger, K. Robin, T. Smolinski, & F. Weber (Eds.), Die Bedeutung von Fortplanzung und Aufzucht von Zootieren. Verhandlungsbericht des Rigi-Symposiums (pp. 23–25). Bern: Schweiz.
Please cite this article in press as: Schäfer, F. On communicating critical issues of population management in zoos to the public. Zool. Garten N.F. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zoolgart.2015.03.003
+Model
ZOOGA-3648; No. of Pages 11
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Schäfer · On communicating critical issues of population management
11
Schäfer, F. (2014). Über die Vermittlung kritischer Inhalte des Populationsmanagements zoologischer Gärten an die Öffentlichkeit. Bachelorthesis zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades: Bachelor of Science. Justus-LiebigUniversität Gießen. Stauffacher, M. (2003). Thesen zur verantwortungsvollen Zucht und Aufzucht von Tieren im Zoo. In P. Dollinger, K. Robin, T. Smolinski, & F. Weber (Eds.), Die Bedeutung von Fortplanzung und Aufzucht von Zootieren. Verhandlungsbericht des Rigi-Symposiums (pp. 39–40). Bern: Schweiz. Steinke, L. (2014a). Bedienungsanleitung für den Shitstorm. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Steinke, L. (2014b). Kommunizieren in der Krise. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Wrzesinski, A. (2013). Zoo 2.0 – Die optimale Unternehmensdarstellung und Kundenbindung im größten sozialen Netzwerk Facebook. Eine Untersuchung anhand von drei verschiedenen deutschen Zoo-Seiten. 1. Aufl. Münster, Westf: Schüling.
Please cite this article in press as: Schäfer, F. On communicating critical issues of population management in zoos to the public. Zool. Garten N.F. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zoolgart.2015.03.003