Biodiversity Loss and the Role of Natural History Museums

Most environmental learning is not acquired in school, but occurs outside of school through free-choice learning experiences, for example in museums (Falk, 2005). Natural history museums, as ‘biodiversity inventories’ (Alberch, 1993), seem to be ideal places for stimulating people’s awareness and engaging the public in biodiversity issues. They provide lifelong exposure to science and scientific discovery, offer an encounter with nature, attract huge audiences, and invoke a feeling of trust in the public (Novacek, 2008). Their high credibility ratings seem to be especially important in times of ‘fake news’, when individuals have to be empowered to evaluate the news they encounter (Lazer et al., 2018). Addressing the biodiversity crisis, natural history museums, as political organisations, have to make their own contribution towards the conservation of nature and natural resources (Vogel, 2015).

The traditional role of natural history museums has been to collect objects, to study and interpret them and to present them to the public. The objects and collections represent natural history content, such as evolution and diversity of life, as well as scientific processes (e.g. identifying, modelling, and hypothesising), behaviours and values (e.g. conservation) associated with these areas (Dillon et al., 2016). The collections contain evidence about wicked problems we are facing today, such as climate change and biodiversity loss. Modern research in natural history museums focuses on the origin of biodiversity, the structure of regional and global biodiversity, ecological features and characteristics of species and their integration into the ecosystem, distribution patterns, and the sustainable use of biodiversity by humans (Beck, 2018). Nowadays, many natural history museums incorporate biodiversity conservation as part of their mission and programmes, aiming at raising the visitors’ awareness and engagement (Arengo et al., 2018).

Natural history museums can play a key role in providing understanding of biodiversity and its degradation but many of them have not fully capitalized on their reputation (Mujtaba et al. 2018; Novacek, 2008). Dorfman (2018) argues that nowadays, coming to the museum to see a ‘dead zoo’ is no longer enough and raises the question of how museums compete in this ‘noisy world’ (p. 3) with a relevant offer that is uniquely theirs? Museums’ contribution to environmental education is to deal with current environmental issues, such as the biodiversity crisis, and to provide a scientific perspective that goes beyond presenting factual information. It is not to teach the ‘right answers’ but to educate citizens and to enable them to take part in debates focussing on environmental issues (Slingsby & Barker, 2003). They have to be dynamic places that incite curiosity, stimulate activities that enhance knowledge of biodiversity, and promote respect and protection of our environment (Omedes & Páramo, 2018). The challenge is to design such learning experiences and to show that biodiversity loss represents a complex problem which has serious impacts on the functioning of ecosystems and their ability to provide goods and services to humanity. As Novacek (2008) argues, engaging the public in biodiversity issues is especially challenging since environmental issues generally rank lower in salience among the public than many other problems, such as terrorism and poverty.

Biodiversity Loss as a Wicked Problem

We are at a critical moment for the Earth’s biodiversity. The variety of life, in all its forms and all its interactions, is declining rapidly worldwide. The extinction of species and changes in ecosystems have major consequences. However, this phenomenon is complex and poorly understood, it involves many stakeholders with different value sets and perceptions of the problem, and it is not solvable with established methods. Biodiversity loss is therefore one of the wicked problems we are facing today.

Biodiversity (biological diversity) is the variety of life on Earth. It is comprised of several levels, starting with genes (the genetic variability between individuals of one population as well as between populations), then species (inter- and intraspecies diversity), then communities of living beings and entire ecosystems (the range of communities with their habitats, that is biotopes and habitats as ecosystems, their correlations among each other and processes taking place within the ecosystems) (e.g., Baur, 2010; Wittig & Niekisch, 2014).

Humans are embedded in ecosystems. Just as is the case for every other species on Earth, we depend on our surrounding ecosystems and cannot exist without them. Plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms provide us with food, medicine, clean air, water and recreation and are the basis and the initiators for pioneering innovations. In this respect, the significance of biodiversity is undoubted. Understanding biodiversity and preventing biodiversity loss, however, is more than challenging.

Biodiversity loss is caused by multiple drivers including the intensification of land use; the destruction, fragmentation and pollution of habitats; the overexploitation of species through hunting; the spread of diseases; the substitution of species and local breeds in agriculture by a limited number of high-output breeds; and the introduction of exotic animal and plant species. The global resource utilization clearly exceeds the biologically possible resource and the situation is getting worse. To prevent the further loss of biodiversity, there is not a single countermeasure and any ‘solution’ can generate another problem (Sharman & Mlambo, 2012).

All environmental conflicts share their complexity: Firstly, the scope of relevant correlations at the ecological level can hardly be conceived; secondly, at a social level, several parties up to complex groups of players are involved via representatives; thirdly, environmental conflicts should be perceived from both a local and global perspective as every local conflict affects the overall socio-ecological system, and vice versa (cf., e.g., Ittner & Ohl, 2012; Müller, 2012). It is essential to carefully and strategically test a combination of measures or approaches which consider different system levels and perspectives to avoid conflicts as much as possible.

Nobody is solely responsible for destroying biodiversity; many players make their contribution. In the majority of cases, the decrease of biodiversity is not caused wilfully or with malicious intent, but is a consequence of activities that pursue another purpose. In light of the pluralism of values, environmental protection competes with other socially accepted values such as economic growth or personal freedom (Ittner et al., 2018). Our destructive handling of the global biological diversity is often justified by the optimistic belief that technical-artificial resources can be substituted for natural ones (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit [BMUB], 2007). However, technical solutions are clearly more expensive (e.g., fertiliser v. natural soil fertility, or recovery of drinking water v. self-purification through soils and waters) and in many cases a substitution is not even possible, for example, replacing insect pollination of cultivated plants (Ott, 1999). Neither can the accomplishments of nature regarding aesthetic qualities (beauty, landscape) and recreational values be replaced by artificial alternatives.

An important reason for the ever-progressing biodiversity loss is seen in a lack of knowledge at three levels (Mehring et al., 2017) – system knowledge (factual knowledge – what is true?), orientation knowledge (normative knowledge – what should we do?), and transformation knowledge (operational knowledge – what can we do?).

System Knowledge

Currently, we know far too little about biological diversity to adequately appreciate, preserve and use it in a sustainable way that benefits everyone (e.g., Dierßen & Huckauf, 2008). The significance of biological diversity for the functioning of ecosystems has been discussed with some controversy for several decades. We need to know more about mechanisms producing and sustaining biological diversity at different levels (genomic, species and ecosystem) in order to be able to predict the effect of global change on biodiversity. To this day, an easily approachable description of all existing species and their interdependency is missing; even a simple list of all known species does not exist. There are neither data about the species’ population status nor models to describe their expected growth rate and to characterise factors which jeopardise or improve a sustainable population growth. Many species are lost before we are even aware of them or their role in the ecosystem. In addition to an organism-centric perspective, the comprehension of global and local material cycles and flows is important to understand the dynamics of ecological communities. These cycles have still not been sufficiently explored to this day. There is an urgent need for a large-scale multi-disciplinary research initiative to fill these knowledge gaps.

Orientation Knowledge

System knowledge alone is not enough. The knowledge needs to be processed and used appropriately. In the context of environmental questions, this invariably calls for ethical standards. To balance possible choices and boundaries and to determine guiding principles, it is essential to find ways to structure and interlink the system knowledge as well as ways to understand the role of humanity. Ecological, economic and socio-cultural perspectives need to be regarded. What matters are the protection of habitats and ecological communities; the protection of wild plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms; the sustainable use of wild and cultured species and their genetic diversity; the access to the world’s genetic resources; the fair distribution of advantages that come from these resources; and improved development opportunities for poorer countries which are richer in biodiversity and whose population is often dependent on the use of limited resources. A stronger inclusion of social sciences is necessary to develop guidelines and measures towards the protection of biodiversity that are more legitimate, salient, robust and effective (Bennett et al., 2017).

Transformation Knowledge

Finally, there is an urgent demand for research dealing with the development of instruments and governance approaches aimed at the solution of conflicts and at the implementation of guiding principles. This situation equally calls for an interdisciplinary approach to ensure that these processes are guided by the best available information (Jahn et al., 2012). Every change regarding the natural environment depends on a change in human behaviour and on public acceptance: technological products need to be bought and used productively; decision-makers need to be willing to invest in environmental protection and new technologies; and eventually, politicians will only implement measures the publics approve of.

Halting Biodiversity Loss

Governments worldwide have committed to international agreements aimed at reducing biodiversity loss such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 2010) and United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (UN, 2015). However, success to date has been limited (e.g., Johnson et al., 2017; Waldron et al., 2017).

Rodríguez et al. (2007) point out that large-scale international development initiatives, designed centrally and implemented top-down, have rarely met expectations. They argue that biodiversity will only be conserved if such approaches recognise the importance of locally produced strategies and agendas and are integrated in local conditions. Additionally, an increased inclusion of each individual is seen as a central precondition for the effective protection of biodiversity (e.g. Sharman & Mlambo, 2012). Up to now, few people have felt personally responsible for the loss of biodiversity. Even though the problem of biodiversity loss has been addressed in scientific discourse and by environmentalists for a while now, relatively few people are familiar with the term biodiversity itself. A survey among 28 EU countries with ca. 28,000 participants (TNS, 2015) gives an indication of the role that biodiversity loss plays in the public awareness.

Respondents were asked whether they were familiar with the term ‘biodiversity’. From the 60% of respondents who have heard of the term, only half of them also know what it means. They were also asked how informed they felt about the loss of biodiversity. Two thirds (66%) of Europeans did not feel informed about the loss of biodiversity, with 22% saying they did not feel informed at all. There are no notable differences based on age, but there is a trend based on education levels: the longer a respondent remained in education, the more likely they are to say they feel informed about the loss of biodiversity. Just 21% of those with the lowest education levels said they feel informed, compared to 30% who finished education aged 16–19 and 44% of those who completed education aged 20 or older.

At least six in ten respondents (61%) believe the decline and possible extinction of animals, plants, natural habitats and ecosystems is a very serious problem, at least at a global level. However, at European level, only just over a third perceive a serious problem (35%) and only 19% with reference to their local area.

Respondents were asked whether they thought they would be personally affected by the degradation of nature and the decline and possible extinction of animal and plant species. A majority answered affirmatively (58%), with 23% saying they are already affected and 35% saying it will affect them in the future. One third (33%) said they will not be personally affected but the next generation will be, while 6% said there would be no effect.

In every member state, respondents were most likely to agree that we have a responsibility to look after nature. Almost two thirds of respondents felt they were already making a personal effort to protect biodiversity and nature (31% considered they were making personal efforts while a further 34% would like to do more). One quarter thought they were not making any effort because they did not know what to do, while 7% explained that they were not making an effort for other reasons. The longer a respondent remained in education, the more likely they were to be making a personal effort. Unsurprisingly, those who had heard of the term ‘biodiversity’ were much more likely to say they were making a personal effort (73% v. 54%) than those who had not. The same pattern applies when comparing those who felt informed about biodiversity loss with those who did not (81% v. 58%). Respondents who thought the degradation of nature will impact them are also much more likely to be making a personal effort to protect biodiversity and nature than those who said they will not be affected (74% v. 54%).

Many people lack awareness of the significance of both biodiversity and its loss. Others are aware of the problem and their own role but need more information about what to do personally to protect biodiversity. Many in the Global North perceive the loss of biodiversity more as a global problem, thinking perhaps of tigers and rhinos, as something affecting tropical forests or coral reefs, geographically far away, and disconnected from their local concerns. Gelsthorpe (2017) argues that such perceptions might stem from the way children are taught about the natural world in schools: if they are continually taught about endangered animals from far away ecosystems and habitats, they risk losing an important connection to their local wildlife and green spaces. To strengthen the appreciation of biological diversity as a crucial precondition for its protection, it is vital to impart its significance and importance appropriately.

There is a need for broader and deeper public understanding and reaching, hence involving the public seems to be the key to achieve the biodiversity conservation goals (Cosquer et al., 2012). Someone ignorant of the meaning of biodiversity cannot be expected to take a stand for its conservation. Emotional involvement (the extent to which we have an affective relationship to the natural world) requires a certain degree of environmental knowledge and awareness (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Yet, how can we raise people’s awareness of the significance of biodiversity and have them interact with nature carefully?

Besides missing knowledge, there is a second factor of crucial importance: the perceived human disconnection from nature – mainly due to urbanization and people spending less time in regular contact with natural environments (‘extinction of experience’, Pyle, 2003; Soga & Gaston, 2016; ‘nature deficit disorder’, Louv, 2005) – is widely viewed as a driving force behind global ecological problems or even as the very crisis itself (Weston 2004). Humans act as if they were separate from nature, as if they could get along without it (Schultz, 2002). It has been stated frequently that a responsible behaviour towards nature correlates with feelings of being in touch with nature (cf. Nisbet et al., 2009; Pyle, 2003). These thoughts arise from the hypothesis of biophilia (Kellert & Wilson, 1993). In the course of evolution, a bond between humans and the multiple forms of life, habitats and ecosystems has formed. Thus, it is argued, there is a genetically determined human desire to connect with non-human organisms and nature on an emotional and cognitive level. However, nature connectedness is not uniform; it incorporates cognitive and affective factors; is dependent on individual features, experiences, and social influences; and therefore depicts a subjective, multi-dimensional construct (Lumber et al., 2017).

To better understand human-nature connections, five types of this multi-dimensional construct have been described (Ives et al., 2018): (1) material (extraction and consumption of materials from nature); (2) experiential (activities in natural environments); (3) cognitive (knowledge or awareness of the environment, attitudes/values towards nature); (4) emotional (feelings of attachment or empathy towards nature); and (5) philosophical (world views on what nature is, why it matters and how humans ought to interact with it). While some of these dimensions are more internally defined (people’s inner world: philosophical, emotional and cognitive), others are more external connections (experiential and material) (Ives et al., 2018). Research has shown that these types of connections interact with each other and influence one another as, for example, nature experiences and physical interaction can foster environmental knowledge and values towards nature as well as a positive emotional relationship with nature (e.g., Bögeholz, 2006; Bratman et al., 2015; Lude, 2006; Otto & Pensini 2017). Accordingly, several authors state that educational programmes should include meaningful nature experiences to strengthen people’s connection with nature and foster nature-protective behaviour (e.g. Kals et al., 1999; Miller, 2005; Soga & Gaston, 2016).

It has been shown that the loss of human-nature interaction not only diminishes benefits to health and well-being but also reduces emotional affinity to nature, thereby having negative effects on attitude and behaviour towards the environment (cf. Soga & Gaston, 2016). The call to reconnect people with nature as a ‘treatment’ for individual health as well as social and environmental problems (Ives et al., 2018) is therefore commonplace in the scientific literature and popular environmental discourse (Restall & Conrad, 2015; Zylstra et al., 2014, for a review). Ives and co-authors (2018) argue that stronger connections in several of the above-mentioned dimensions have potential to support a profound social change towards/in terms of sustainability. But how can nature connectedness be fostered – for instance, in cities where the population is often disconnected from experiences of nature? How can we provide opportunities for meaningful interactions with the natural world?

Nature Experiences to Facilitate Nature Connectedness

Empirical research has found that nature-protective behaviour cannot be sufficiently explained using a pure cognitive approach, but that it is positively associated with the strength of emotional connections towards nature (e.g., Hinds & Sparks, 2008; Kals et al., 1999; Lumber et al., 2017; Otto & Pensini, 2017). Besides the cognitive dimension, interventions that connect people to nature emotionally and philosophically are perceived as particularly important to achieve profound and sustainable social change (Ives et al., 2018). To generate nature connectedness, activities are required that illustrate the importance of nature through experiencing it and thereby facilitating emotional attachment, for example, by promoting an involvement with nature’s beauty (Lumber et al., 2017).

Experiencing nature can take place in many different ways, such as outdoor versus indoor, active versus passive, secluded versus crowded and plant-involved versus animal-involved (Howell et al., 2011). On a more general level, experience of nature has been classified in three ways (Kellert, 2002): direct (actual physical contact with natural settings and nonhuman species, spontaneous and unplanned), indirect (actual physical contact in restricted, programmed and managed contexts) and vicarious/symbolic (absence of physical contact with the natural world: films, books and technologies). Kellert (2002) stresses the importance of direct and physical experiences with nature as they offer unique opportunities for intimacy, challenges, creativity and active participation. He argues that indirect experiences, such as encountering plants, animals and habitats in natural history museums, do not provide an adequate substitution for declines in direct encounters with the natural world. However, indirect experiences might help to acquire basic skills such as naming, labelling and classifying (Kellert, 2002) and thereby foster the cognitive dimension of nature connectedness. In addition, seeing Natural History Museum specimens can inspire wonder (e.g., Valdecasas et al. 2006). Duerden and Witt (2010) compared the impact of direct and indirect experiences on the development of environmental knowledge, attitudes and behaviour. Their findings highlight the complexity of this relationship and indicate that a combination of both indirect and direct experiences appears to be an effective method of promoting pro-environmental behaviour. Equally, based on their research, Soga and co-authors (2016) highlight that different ways of encountering nature – direct as well as vicarious – should be promoted to support nature connectedness and biodiversity conservation.

Nature Experiences Through Natural History Dioramas: A Visitor Study

Based on the results of previous visitor studies concerning natural history dioramasFootnote 1 in museums (Scheersoi, 2015; Scheersoi & Weiser, 2019), it can be argued that indirect experience of nature, under certain conditions, does not only promote basic skills but also discovery, creativity and positive feelings towards nature, sometimes even fostering ecological awareness. Nature experiences at natural history dioramas therefore appear to be suitable to enhance several types of nature connections (cognitive, emotional and maybe even philosophical; see above) and might help visitors to get an idea about biodiversity and its complexity. Dioramas offer opportunities for animal encounters that are not possible in the wild and therefore might complement direct encounters in a meaningful way.

I decided to take a second look at the data from an earlier study and to analyse them with a specific focus on the potential of dioramas to foster the visitors’ knowledge and awareness regarding biodiversity and to address ecological issues. The study was conducted in a German natural history museum with a diorama gallery presenting 15 different habitats. The dioramas were built in the 1990s, and biodiversity loss is not addressed explicitly in this exhibition. However, different ecosystems (e.g., farm land, natural beech forest, pond, moorland and home garden; Fig. 4.1) with characteristic biotic and abiotic components (animals, plants, soil, water, etc.) are represented and can be compared. Species lists in the form of labels on the wall next to each individual diorama are provided by the museum. All the dioramas represent habitats local to the museum. In accordance with several authors who advocate environmental educational programmes that focus on immediate surroundings and local environments (e.g., Garthe, 2018; Kellert, 2002), I suggest that meaningful nature experiences, interaction and participation might be easier to foster in local and familiar habitats. They might be particularly important for the visitors’ awareness in the light of the popular notion explained in the preceding that biodiversity loss only affects distant tropical regions.

Fig. 4.1
figure 1figure 1

Natural history dioramas: (a) farmland, (b) pond and (c) attic, Vonderau Museum Fulda, Germany. (Photos: © Zbigniew Jez, Vonderau-Museum)

Full size image

Visits to this diorama gallery might raise people’s awareness of the diversity of local habitats, species diversity, and the connections between them. At some dioramas, the visitors might even perceive changes in ecosystems that have occurred since the dioramas were built 25–30 years ago.

Leisure visitors (n > 300) were observed (unobtrusive observation) during their visit to the diorama gallery in order to determine where they stopped and engaged with the diorama gallery’s content and which exhibition components caught and maintained their interest. Spontaneous conversations were noted down as far as possible. After the visit to the diorama gallery, semi-structured interviews (n = 276) were conducted in order to identify more clearly the types of experiences and their role in fostering environmental knowledge, attitudes and awareness.

As a first step, the observational data and the interview transcripts were analysed by establishing categories in relation to diorama components/characteristics that caught the visitors’ attention and fostered engagement with the diorama content. In a second step, the data were further analysed with regard to the different dimensions of human-nature connections identified by Ives and co-authors (2018; see above). The aim was to find out which specific aspects of nature experiences at dioramas supported human-nature connections to eventually provide ‘reconnection strategies’ for environmental and conservation education in natural history museums.

The results of the observational study show that the museum visitors had at least a quick look at all the dioramas in the gallery. However, they did not stop and spend an equal amount of time in front of the different habitat representations. Visitors stayed longer at dioramas displaying animals in action and/or interaction, for example, animal families (e.g., ‘The father pig is called a boar, the mother pig is called a sow’) or predators hunting their prey (e.g., ‘The poor fish’ [killed by an otter]). These kinds of representation often stimulate the visitors’ imagination and incite storytelling, especially in children (e.g. ‘The cat is looking at the mouse. She’ll shortly attack it’). Dioramas also maintained the visitors’ attention and interest when they offered unfamiliar insights into specific habitats, for example life underwater, in the soil or inside an anthill. Visitors studied these habitats intensively and for a long time and sometimes commented on environmental challenges and the species’ adaptations (e.g. ‘Here, the entrance to his [muskrat] cave is underwater’). Especially long dwell times and intensive conversations were observed at dioramas in which the habitat was reconstructed in a particularly detailed manner, for example showing many different species, including small ones like insects (‘The beetles [burying beetles] devour the dead squirrel’). Visitors talked about the species’ characteristics (e.g., ‘The crab has scissors as hands’), described relationships (e.g., ‘The fungus [tinder fungus, Fomes fomentarius] grows on the tree trunk’) and tried to name the different species. For a reliable identification, most of the visitors used the species lists provided by the museum (e.g., ‘A snake’ – ‘Yes, a smooth snake’).

In the post-visit interviews, visitors were asked to talk about their experiences and what they liked most during their visit to the diorama gallery. The visitors’ answers also help to shed light on the reasons behind the observed visitor behaviour. Visitors emphasised their appreciation for the detailed and accurate reconstruction of habitats, not only offering context to the specimens presented but creating the impression that one looks into a real habitat through a window. Some visitor statements are quoted as examples:

  • What was really amazing for me was the love for detail in this diorama. Very interesting with all these little bits and bobs.

  • It looks like real life.

Visitors were impressed by the way of presentation and the subsequent feeling of immersing oneself in the habitat and being part of it (immersion experience, e.g., Bitgood, 2014). These specific experiences, the visitors’ feeling of time and place and some kind of perceived interaction with natural environments were also explicitly mentioned in many interviews as a strength of these habitat dioramas:

  • It was really as if I walked outside along a path. Absolutely authentic. That’s a lasting impression.

  • You just feel like being in the forest.

Visitors explained that they particularly appreciate animals that are ‘frozen in action’ as this kind of representation increases the feeling of authenticity and makes the scene more vivid:

  • Because there is so much activity.

  • The fact that the hawk is about to catch the other bird, that makes it look even more real.

Represented interactions between species did not only catch the visitors’ attention and increased the feeling of authenticity but also offered opportunities to recognize the interrelations between species. In the dioramas, visitors identified relations between species of the same kind (e.g., family structure or brood care) and between different species (e.g. symbiosis or predator and prey):

  • There’s the male deer and on the other side [in the diorama] the doe and the fawn. That makes it really life-like. The male is just lying there on his own, but you notice the tension of the doe.

  • You get to see herons quite often, but it’s fascinating to see what fish species they catch.

In the interviews, visitors also mentioned species-specific behaviour that they had observed in the different dioramas:

  • You can also see how the beaver cut the trunk and used it to build his dam.

  • The anthill: the sleeping chamber, the feeding chamber, (...) and there, the queen can lay eggs.

Through their observations, visitors could find out about individual species characteristics. They appreciated the experience with real specimens, for example, seeing them in life size, in comparison to symbolic nature experiences via books or films:

  • I was impressed by its [eagle owl] size!

  • For example, the beaver, I was stunned that it is so big because I have not seen a beaver in reality yet. Just in films or on pictures. And because you only seldom see these animals.

New insights were also provided when dioramas offered unusual perspectives into habitats, such as a pond or a stream with over−/underwater split-level effect (Fig. 4.1 B), the cross-section of an anthill or a muskrat’s nest. Visitors appreciated these novel perspectives; some even started raising questions about ecological adaptations:

  • Because you can look straight into the water and you normally cannot see the fish like that, from that perspective.

  • [Muskrat] The den from its side. Because you never see it like that in nature.

  • From down in the water [underwater entrance] is leading a tunnel up into the soil. How does it [the muskrat] get oxygen in there?

Some visitors explicitly mentioned the value of these unique learning opportunities at dioramas. They acknowledged the diversity of local species that can be discovered, observed and identified. Moreover, they realised and understood the value of being able to show them to their accompanying children:

  • This whole diversity.

  • There are some animals I know by name, but I have never seen them before.

  • I like these dioramas where you can see the real animals like that. Many children do not know them – I have worked in a Kindergarten – and I appreciate this kind of exhibit.

  • Because it’s native animals [...], especially to show it to the kids.

The visitors valued the close encounter with animals. In contrast to living animals in the wild, diorama specimens obviously do not run away or hide and the visitors can get close to them. Some of the visitors’ comments show that they experienced such encounters to some extent as authentic:

  • At home, in the backyard, the ground is often dug up by boars and you never catch sight of them. Here you get them in plain view.

  • You rarely see the otter. Usually, you only catch sight of it when it’s dead.

  • They look so real, you can be lucky that the glass is in between!

Other aspects that were often mentioned in interviews are the dioramas’ aesthetics and atmosphere. Visitors enjoyed bright colours and colourful presentations:

  • Just because of the colours and because of the brightness and friendliness, the flowers.

  • Because it’s so green and not so dark. It’s just beautiful.

  • Reassuring.

More introspective experiences referred to the relationship between mankind and nature. Such experiences were often supported at dioramas with human traces or artefacts (such as a fence or a boundary stone) and at dioramas that represent man-made habitats, such as a garden or an old building’s attic (Figure 4.1 C).

  • I would like to have a garden like this. Human culture in combination with nature. This always fascinates me.

  • Animals living in areas developed by man. That’s really interesting.

  • I like the attic the most. Because it is the closest to us humans.

The visitors state that they especially liked the depicted direct relation between humans and nature. Furthermore, many visitors expressed their astonishment about the diversity of species, which they would not have expected at those places.

  • There are many different animals of which you don’t even believe that they live in the attic.

  • What animals have their habitats there. You just don’t expect that.

However, the elderly in particular visiting the diorama gallery realized that changes have occurred in the environment of these local habitats. In the interviews, they talked about the loss of biodiversity in general but also about the decreasing occurrence of individual species, sometimes mentioning the impact of humans. Visitors recalled personal memories and experiences, often involving a concern for other natural entities:

  • Yes, the flowers, because I still experienced that as a child, this huge plant diversity.

  • Thus, colourful meadows or fields with the flowers, this you don’t see anymore because over here, everything is fertilised away or destroyed as weeds.

  • And this often doesn’t exist today. Today, mankind intervenes an awful lot.

  • This also reminds me of my childhood, these salamanders. I have not seen them for a long time.

  • Because of the bats. Almost all of them are endangered, they are very rare now.

These results from our visitor observations in a diorama gallery as well as from post-visit interviews show that museums with natural history dioramas provide an opportunity to encounter nature and that this encounter is perceived as authentic to a certain extent. The detailed and accurate reconstruction of habitats with original specimens supports the visitors’ feeling of authenticity (cf. Köstering, 2015) and experiential human-nature connections (‘It looks like real life’). Represented activity with animals ‘frozen in action’ increases the vividness of the scenes (‘… makes it look even more real’). Many visitors are fascinated by the immersion experiences (‘You just feel like being in a forest’), creating for the visitor a feeling of being in the time and place simulated by the exhibit. Bitgood (2014) lists a number of factors contributing to the immersion experience, which also characterise the dioramas in the study: realism of the illusion, dimensionality, meaningfulness, mental imagery, and the lack of interfering factors (e.g., presence of text labels in the diorama).

The feeling of authenticity and the visitors’ fascination for the detailed and accurate representation of the habitats (‘really amazing’, ‘lasting impression’) can support emotional human-nature connections at dioramas. Dioramas enable several further affective experiences, such as surprising moments when realising the actual size of an animal (‘I was impressed/stunned …’), species diversity in local environments (‘You just don’t expect that’), sympathizing with vulnerable species (e.g. small or baby animals) or being moved emotionally by the beauty of a colourful meadow (‘just beautiful’, ‘reassuring’). Perceiving the beauty of nature and its diversity seems to be particularly beneficial for the development of an emotional human-nature connection (cf. Lumber et al., 2017).

The data also show that nature experiences at dioramas offer multiple learning opportunities, such as the extension of species knowledge and the perception of biodiversity at different levels – diversity of species, communities and habitats (‘This whole diversity’). Cognitive human-nature connections are supported as natural history dioramas present specimens in carefully reconstructed ecological contexts, which help to visualise ecological knowledge. Through this visualisation, knowledge becomes easily accessible without the need to read any long explanatory texts. Visitors, especially parents or teachers who come to the museum with their children, appreciate these learning opportunities immensely (‘... especially to show it to the kids’). Dioramas offer nature experiences that are not possible outdoors in natural environments: animal specimens can be observed at rest (‘here you can get them in plain view’) (‘stand and stare’; Reiss & Tunnicliffe, 2011), and their individual characteristics, such as their size, shape or colour, can be detected and compared. Their behaviour and interrelations, for example predator-prey relationships, can be identified and interpreted (‘… to see what fish species they catch’). Some dioramas offer new perspectives into specific habitats as they represent life underwater or the cross-section of an animal’s den. Visitors value such unfamiliar insights (‘Because you never see it like this in nature’). They can find out which animals or plants live in these ‘hidden habitats’ (e.g. shells or fish species under water), and they can recognize the species’ specific adaptive traits or behaviour.

Even philosophical human-nature connections can be supported at natural history dioramas, especially when they represent habitats that are influenced by humans, or man-made habitats, for example’ farmland, houses or gardens. In the post-visit interviews, visitors stated that they enjoyed seeing habitats where humans and the other species live undisturbed and in harmony with each other (‘Human culture in combination with nature’). However, at such dioramas – and even at dioramas that just include discreet human traces, such as a boundary stone – introspective experiences often also refer to the question of how humans (should) interact with nature (‘Today, mankind intervenes an awful lot’). Visitors reflect on the fact that biodiversity has been reduced due to human influences (‘Thus colourful meadows or fields with the flowers, this you don’t see anymore because over here, everything is fertilised away or destroyed as weeds’) and consider the extinction of species (‘Almost all of them are endangered, they are very rare now’).

In summary, the data suggest that indirect nature experiences with dioramas can foster several dimensions of human-nature connections: cognitive, emotional and philosophical. As it can be assumed that interactions among different dimensions of nature connections exist (cf. Ives et al., 2018), dioramas seem especially promising to appeal to visitors. Furthermore, through a foundation of knowledge, values and attitudes, dioramas can cultivate awareness and ecological sensitivity as a central basis for pro-environmental behaviour.

The results of this study also show that dioramas trigger the visitors’ imagination and inspire storytelling. The ‘power of story’ is seen as an important aspect of using emotions in biological education and enables (young) people to reconnect with nature (Barker, 2007). Narratives help to create meaningful experiences as they can bridge the gap between everyday concepts and scientific conceptions (Cotumaccio, 2015; Tunnicliffe, 2015). Hence, they are considered to be an important tool for understanding and remembering in biology education (Zabel, 2004).

Nature experiences through dioramas differ from outdoor experiences in natural environments, but complement them in a meaningful way due to certain diorama features:

  • Dioramas depict the character of specific biotopes and their inhabitants, including biotic and abiotic relationships.

  • The specimens can be viewed and compared at rest.

  • The visitors can have a close encounter even with rare and dangerous animals.

  • Dioramas can provide unique perspectives on habitats, such as life underwater or life in the soil.

  • Diorama galleries offer immediate comparisons between different habitats and adaptations.

  • Habitat changes can be visualised through historical dioramas.

Museum Visitors’ Awareness of Biodiversity and Their Connection to Nature

Modern exhibitions in natural history museums need to address contemporary challenges and wicked problems such as biodiversity loss. Natural history dioramas provide one distinct way to foster environmental knowledge, create awareness of biodiversity in its different forms and reconnect people to nature. Knowledge and the people’s appreciation for nature have the potential to effectively promote pro-environmental behaviour (Roczen et al., 2014). Therefore, dioramas need to be repositioned in present-day science education. In contrast to museum exhibitions where specimens are presented one by one in display cases, dioramas replicate natural wildlife scenes and direct the visitors’ attention to whole landscapes with their diversity of biotic and abiotic phenomena (Tunnicliffe & Scheersoi, 2015). Dioramas provide opportunities for meaningful interactions with the natural world. They can help us to visualise the consequences of human activity (Wonders, 2016). Indirect nature experiences at dioramas, enhanced by emotions and feelings of immersion, complement direct encounters with the natural world in a significant way and can promote the perception and appreciation of biodiversity.

In the study reported here, certain diorama characteristics have been identified that support interest and biodiversity awareness as well as several dimensions of human-nature connections: Dioramas are most promising if they:

  • Represent animals in action (‘frozen in action’).

  • Illustrate interaction/relationships between species (including between animals and plants).

  • Offer new perspectives into habitats.

  • Show habitats that are reconstructed in a very accurate and detailed manner.

  • Represent biodiversity at different levels (species, communities and habitats).

  • Relate humans and nature.

  • Visualize environmental changes (landscape, habitat degradation).

Nature experiences at dioramas should be considered as a starting point for further engagement, preferably focusing on interaction and participation (Garthe, 2018). Museum visitors might benefit from the opportunity to encounter scientists to find out about biodiversity loss and the complexity of the problem. They might have the chance to engage with people who do not just present factual information but compassionately tackle ecological issues, stimulate activities, and discuss about the effectiveness of actions.