Measuring the effectiveness of using rangers to deliver a behavior change campaign on sustainable palm oil in a UK zoo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A fundamental objective of modern zoos is promoting pro-environmental behaviors. This study experimentally assessed the contribution of zoo rangers (staff employed to engage visitors) in delivering a behavior change campaign promoting sustainable palm oil use. The campaign was delivered in a dedicated area in a walk-through animal exhibit, with rangers either "present" or "absent" in the campaign space. Questionnaires assessing awareness, knowledge, and purchasing intentions were completed by 1032 visitors. Two analyses were conducted: (1) comparing the impact of ranger presence versus absence (to assess the overall impact of having rangers present regardless of whether they talked to visitors) and (2) comparing the impact of talking to a ranger against demographically matched individuals visiting when rangers were absent (to assess the specific impact of talking to a ranger). Visitors who talked to rangers were more aware of palm oil, had more knowledge, and greater intentions of purchasing sustainable palm oil. However, as only one-quarter of visitors talked to a ranger, fewer differences were found comparing ranger presence versus absence. These findings suggest that rangers can be instrumental in communicating complex conservation issues and delivering zoo-based behavior change campaigns, but their impact is limited by low engagement rates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".