4.3 Article

Comparing visitor motivation and demographics between an insect festival and science festivals

Journal

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aesa/saad024

Keywords

science festivals; insect festivals; informal science learning; outreach

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Both science festivals and insect festivals have increased in frequency in recent decades. Comparing Bug Bowl, a long-running insect festival, with a validated science festival visitor survey, we found that Bug Bowl audiences had high levels of education, a strong interest in science, and frequently visited science venues. Unlike science festivals, Bug Bowl had a higher rate of returning visitors than new visitors. Bug Bowl visitors were primarily motivated to have fun and provide a learning experience for their children, and they rated their experiences very positively.
Both science festivals and insect festivals have increased in frequency in the last few decades. In order to compare insect festivals with science festivals, we modified a validated science festival visitor survey (EvalFest) for Purdue's Bug Bowl, a long-running insect festival. Benchmarking against EvalFest and Collaboration for Ongoing Visitor Experience Studies (COVES) results, we found that Bug Bowl audiences were similar in having high levels of education, a high interest in science, and frequently visiting science venues. In fact, 23% of Bug Bowl survey takers indicated that they were actual scientists themselves. In contrast to EvalFest results, Bug Bowl had a higher rate of returning visitors than new visitors. Bug Bowl visitor motivations were primarily to have fun and bring their children for a learning experience, and they rated their experiences very positively. Ninety-one percent of Bug Bowl attendees surveyed lived in the state of Indiana. We discuss gaps in expected visitor demographics and possible applications for a shared common evaluation within a working group of insect festivals.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available