In our most recent Community Conversation, we explored the relationship between nature and technology—specifically “screens”—to interact with guests, from business operations, to ticketing and wayfinding, to education. While many agree with using some level of technology in our venues if it doesn’t compete with real animals, some worry that media may replace the live animal. We thank our guest panelists Kathayoon Khalil, PhD, Zoo Advisors; Dave Weidner, Founder, Wildlife Protection Solutions; Emily Routman, Emily Routman Associates; and Judy Braus, President and CEO, NAAEE who discussed the pros and cons, led by our moderator Jackie Ogden PhD, Zoo Advisors and joined by audience members.
There was general agreement among the group that technology (screens/VR/etc.) has a role to play in engaging our guests. That said, all panelists agreed that the technology chosen must be the best way to reach the engagement goals, not technology solely for technology’s sake.
Additional takeaways include:
-
An approach to thinking about technology: if you find yourself saying, “If only my guests could do…” then it’s possible that technology may provide a solution.
-
Several panelists and audience members recommend the use of technology for providing reinforcements/etc. following a visit.
-
This past year especially, the use of technology for virtual visits, camps, and education has been invaluable.
-
iNaturalist/SEEK and other similar apps (such as Merlin Bird ID for beginner birders) are being used by campers and students, sparking their interest for the natural world and identification.
-
Virtual programs allow institutions to reach audiences located outside of their region/nation they otherwise would not have access to. One virtual summer camp reached 28 different states and three countries/territories that students would not have attended in person otherwise.
-
Likewise, virtual programs allow for attendees who otherwise are prevented from participating in in-person programs due to accessibility issues, i.e., not being able to send an aide with their child, etc.
-
-
All panelists also recognize that maintenance/updating/etc. is often not funded when technology is used, whether it’s social media or interpretive activities on site, and that trained staff must be dedicated to managing the technology.
-
Recommended roles where technology may enhance the experience:
-
Helping guests “crawl into the animal’s life”
-
When goals include empathy/caring/connecting
-
Providing opportunities for “active observation”—e.g., through citizen science efforts
-
Connecting people globally and to global experiences
-
Connection to actions—whether that be contacting a congressional representative or donating to conservation efforts
-
Providing follow-up information, prompts, reminders, and opportunities to deepen the level of engagement
-
-
Several studies were cited that address aspects of the use of technology (click on the title and/or link to access):
-
Wheaton, Ardoin, et al. “Using Web and Mobile Technology to Motivate Pro-Environmental Action After a Nature-Based Tourism Experience.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism. (2015).
-
Veenstra, Mettina, et al. “Should Public Displays be lnteractive? Evaluating the lmpact of lnteractivity on Audience Engagement.” Proceedings of the 4th lnternational Symposium on Pervasive Displays. (2015); L7-L8.
-
Webber S, Carter M, Smith W, Vetere F. “lnteractive Technology and Human-Animal Encounters at the Zoo”. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. (2017);98: 150-168.
-
Additionally, a review of learning associated with digital technology is available through NAAEE at https://naaee.org/our-work/programs/eeworks
-
-
One challenging aspect of technology is that of equity—are you ensuring that your entire audience is equally able to experience the technology?
-
Finally, all panelists and several participants reminded us to remember the importance of wild spaces/nature and not overrely on technology.
