Why do they come? Understanding attendance at ranger-led programs in great smoky mountains National Park.
Stern, Marc J. ; Powell, Robert B. ; Hockett, Karen S. 等
Introduction
Live interpretive programs at national parks may serve multiple
functions. They help to reveal to park visitors the deeper meanings
associated with parks' cultural and natural resources (Tilden,
1957; Ham, 1992; Ward & Wilkinson, 2006). They can enhance
visitors' experiences through better orientation to available
sights, resources, and activities or through providing quality
entertainment (Moscardo, 1999). They can effect emotional connections to
the landscape, to the animal or plant life, and to the history being
interpreted (Tilden, 1957). They can influence visitors' attitudes
toward the park they're visiting, toward the National Park Service,
or toward an ecosystem, a historical event, a social movement, or toward
nature in general (e.g., Powell, Kellert, & Ham, 2009). They can be
instrumental in the development of positive relationships with
neighboring residents (Stern, 2010). Research and theory also suggest
that interpretation can influence visitors' behavior both during
their visits and after they have left the park, contributing to resource
protection on-site and enhanced environmental stewardship in general
(Ham, 2009).
None of these benefits can be achieved, however, if visitors
don't attend the programs. Recent visitor surveys from multiple
parks suggest that attendance is highly variable. In national parks that
focus primarily on the preservation and interpretation of natural
resources, an average of about 12 percent of visitors may attend a live
interpretive program on a given visit. In national parks focused
primarily on cultural resource preservation, not including living
history sites, an average of roughly 30 percent of visitors typically
attend (Park Studies Unit, 2010).
This study is primarily concerned with understanding why people
choose to attend or not attend these programs at one national park,
Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GRSM) in Tennessee and North
Carolina, United States. It is also concerned with determining the most
efficient way(s) to gain this understanding. What do park rangers
already know? Is a general visitor survey necessary? How can other parks
address this issue without having to reinvent the wheel or expend
valuable resources?
This research addresses three critical research questions:
1. What do rangers think are the primary barriers and motivations
associated with visitors' attendance at live interpretive programs
at GRSM?
2. Why do visitors actually attend (or not attend) live
interpretive programs at GRSM?
3. What can we learn from the answers to the first two questions
that can contribute to increasing program attendance and future
monitoring for the adaptive management of marketing interpretive
programs?
Motivations and Barriers to Program Attendance in the Literature
The literature suggests that elements of convenience, pre-existing
interests, novelty, values, fears, rewards, and marketing may each play
a role in determining program attendance (Ham, 1992; Moscardo, 1999;
Ward & Wilkinson, 2006). Prior empirical research suggests that
visitors' motivations for attending live interpretive programs at
national parks include overall motivations for attending the park
(Absher & Graefe, 1997); program characteristics associated with
program length, location, and subject matter (Knudson & Vanderford,
1980); advertising efforts and information sources (Reyburn, 1974;
Knudson & Vanderford, 1980; Ng, 1986); prior park visitation (Morse,
1977 ; Mullins, 1979); pro-environmental attitudes (Irving, 1986);
demographic characteristics (age, gender, education - Irving, 1986); and
a long list of more specific wants of visitors, including the desire to
interact with others (Irving, 1986; Srisomyoung, 2000; Packer, 2004); to
be entertained (Veverka, 1978; Srisomyoung, 2000; Galloway, 2002); to
develop an appreciation for nature (Irving, 1986; Srisomyoung, 2000); to
learn more about a subject or develop specific skills (Veverka, 1978;
Irving, 1986; Packer, 2004; Srisomyoung, 2000; Galloway, 2002), to
escape or be restored from everyday life (Srisomyoung, 2000; Galloway,
2002; Packer, 2004); to enhance personal fitness (Srisomyoung, 2000;
Galloway, 2002); to ensure a safe visit (Veverka, 1978); to build
self-esteem (Veverka, 1978; Packer, 2004); to increase chances of
"seeing the real thing" (Veverka, 1978); to gain better
orientation to place (Irving, 1986); and to seek new stimulating
sensations (Galloway, 2002). The primary barriers noted in the
literature included a lack of awareness of programs' existence
(Morse, 1977; Srisomyoung, 2000); inconvenient timing (Srisomyoung,
2000); lack of interest (Srisomyoung, 2000); poor location (Knudson
& Vanderford, 1980; Srisomyoung, 2000); not having a companion
(Srisomyoung, 2000); and personal doubts about the capability (physical
or linguistic) to participate (Srisomyoung, 2000; Packer 2004). We were
unable to locate more recent literature explicitly focused on
understanding interpretive program attendance in parks.
Interpretation at Great Smoky Mountains National Park
With over nine million visitors per year, GRSM is the most visited
national park in the United States (National Park Service Public Use
Statistics Office, 2010). The 522,419-acre park, which straddles the
border of North Carolina and Tennessee, charges no entry fee and serves
not only as a destination for tourists from far and wide, but also as a
common recreational area and transportation route for local residents.
For management purposes, the park is divided into three districts
geographically (Cades Cove, Oconaluftee, and Sugarlands), each home to a
wide array of both cultural and natural resources upon which
interpretive programs focus. Programs range from extended nature hikes
focusing on the natural history of the park to cultural history tours
and demonstrations. While many programs aim to serve a wide array of
types of visitor groups, some programs specifically aim to attract
family groups, in particular the park's well-attended Junior Ranger
programs. This study aimed to understand attendance across the broadest
array of these programs possible.
Methods
We conducted three surveys: one with interpretive rangers at GRSM
and two with visitors. The two visitor surveys included a "general
visitor survey" and a survey of attendees of interpretive programs.
The surveys were developed through a review of the literature, a focus
group with 14 park staff and members of educational and interpretive
partner organizations at GRSM in December 2007, and phone interviews
with the park's chief of resource education and each of the three
district supervisory interpretive rangers. The focus groups and
interviews explored participants' perceptions of the primary
motivations and barriers associated with attendance of interpretive
programs at GRSM. These perceptions, in conjunction with the literature,
helped to form survey items for surveys with rangers and the public.
Ranger Surveys
In the fall of 2008, we conducted an online survey with
interpretive rangers (n = 13) from each of the park's three
districts. Nine of the 10 permanent interpretive ranger staff (one was
on leave) and four of the park's nine seasonal interpretive rangers
responded to the survey (the interpretive season had just ended, so some
seasonal staff were no longer available). The survey elicited opinions
and observations of interpretive rangers regarding attendance at park
interpretive programs. The primary goal of the survey was to generate
clear hypotheses regarding the barriers and motivations of different
audiences to attend both cultural and environmental interpretation
programs within GRSM.
General Visitor Survey
The first visitor survey, which we refer to as the "general
visitor survey," contacted a representative sample of visitors to
the park. It collected data on both the motivations and barriers
associated with program attendance and explored attendance patterns and
likely future attendance among the general population of visitors. It
also asked about group characteristics, prior experiences, motivations
for visiting the park in general, quality assessments of programs for
those who had attended, and information sources for finding out about
programs. For the general visitor survey, contacts with visitors were
made from July 25, 2009, through August 2, 2009. The sampling locations
were chosen to include visitors to the three park districts. Sampling
times were equally distributed between mornings and evenings at each
site. Visitor contacts lasted approximately one to two minutes. The
research team contacted the first group that entered their vicinity
after arriving on-site, inviting one visitor per group to accept an
invitation to the survey. Upon completion of each contact, they were
instructed to contact the next group and to target, whenever possible, a
member of the opposite sex of their prior contact. We aimed to avoid
school groups and other large tour groups, as program attendance was
likely not dictated by the individual in these groups. Potential
respondents were briefly told about the purpose of the survey and were
invited to participate. If they agreed to participate, they were handed
a postcard with instructions on how to access the survey online, along
with a personal identification number (PIN). The PINs were used
primarily to associate responses with data collected on-site.
Respondents were asked to provide their zip code and their email address
so that we could send them one reminder. We chose to provide only one
reminder to enhance the likelihood of obtaining emails and to reduce the
burden on visitors. Researchers recorded observable group
characteristics (e.g., family, couple) to test for any patterns in
non-response bias. We also distributed 200 mail-back surveys with
envelopes and postage for those without internet access or who stated a
preference for the paper survey.
Of the 2,064 visitors approached, a total of 1,830 visitors
accepted either the postcard or one of the 200 mail-back paper surveys.
Ten days after the distribution of postcards at the park, a reminder
email was sent to those who provided an email address and had not yet
completed the internet survey (57.7 percent of potential participants
provided an email address, n = 938). We received 617 completed surveys.
The combined response rate for the surveys (mail and internet) was 33.7
percent. The response rate for the mail survey (42.0 percent) was
significantly higher than the response rate for the internet version
(32.9 percent; Pearson [chi square], p=0.010). The internet response can
be considered high for internet surveys, particularly those with only
one reminder email sent to only a fraction of those originally invited
(Sheehan, 2001).
We conducted non-response analyses to determine if different types
of visitors may have responded at different rates. Visitors were
categorized as "locals" if they were estimated to have
traveled 60 minutes or less to any park entrance, as calculated using
the Network Analyst tool in ESRI ArcMap(C). Locals (n = 200, 33.0
percent) did not have a significantly different response rate than
non-locals (n = 1610, 32.3 percent). Response rates of those visiting
the park as couples were significantly higher than other group types
(35.2 percent vs. 27.9 percent). We were unable to conduct reliable
non-response tests of different racial or ethnic groups due to an
inability to make determinations about race in the field.
Program Attendees Survey
The second survey targeted program attendees. We conducted this
survey to ensure a large enough sample of program attendees to be able
to make statistical inferences. We also aimed to obtain motivation
information prior to program attendance to be able to compare to
recalled motivations obtained in the general visitor survey. From August
3, 2009, through August 9, 2009, interpretive rangers handed out brief
visitor surveys (one side of one page) to one adult member of each group
attending their interpretive programs immediately prior to (up to five
minutes before) the start of the program. School groups were excluded.
Rangers were instructed to read a script to solicit the participation of
one adult member of each group in attendance prior to the start of the
program. They passed out the one-sided survey on card stock, along with
a pencil to all attendees who volunteered to take the survey. Completed
surveys were collected prior to the programs' start. A total of 276
surveys were completed by visitors at 46 different interpretive
programs. Based on rangers' reports of non-response frequencies at
each program, the overall response rate for these surveys was 93.3
percent.
Results
Ranger Perceptions
We asked interpretive rangers to rate their perceptions of the
importance of a range of visitors' potential motivations for
attending interpretive programs in the park (Table 1). The question used
a five-point scale with three anchor points: 1 = very rarely; 3 =
somewhat common; 5 = extremely common. We asked about cultural and
environmental programs separately. For each type of program, rangers
reported the top motivating factors to be: interest in a specific topic
or place, the promise of a tangible reward, and serendipity (or just
happening to catch visitors in the right place at the right time). Few
differences were reported between the two program types.
We also asked interpretive rangers to rate the importance of a list
of potential barriers to visitors' attendance of interpretive
programs on a five-point scale (Table 2; 1 = not important; 3 = somewhat
important; 5 = very important). Rangers reported the most important
barriers to program attendance to be a lack of awareness of programs,
inconvenient locations or times, and visitor preference for a more
solitary experience.
Rangers were also asked to identify their perceptions of up to five
of the most consistently important barriers and motivations for
different types of visitors (Tables 1 and 2). Rangers on average felt
that the most frequently important motivations for family groups and for
all non-local visitors to attend their programs were entertainment,
serendipity, and tangible rewards. Meanwhile, most rangers felt people
coming to the park alone and visitors from the local area would be
motivated by interest in a specific topic or place , a direct invitation
from a ranger, or a desire to learn. A lack of knowledge of programs and
inconvenient time and location were among rangers' top-selected
barriers for individuals, families, locals, and non-locals. Rangers
commonly felt that individuals would more commonly prefer a more
solitary or self-guided visit, that families might be worried about the
appropriateness of programs for everyone in their group, and that locals
may not be interested because they may have already participated in a
program before.
We also asked interpretive rangers to indicate their perceptions of
the level of effectiveness of a number of information sources in
influencing visitor participation in park interpretive programs (Table
3). A three-point scale was employed, representing low (1), medium (2),
and high (3) effectiveness. Rangers rated personal invitations as the
most effective means of generating attendance at interpretive programs.
Newspapers were also rated as particularly important for locals. Rangers
felt the least effective pathways for local residents included bulletin
boards, the park bulletin, and information boards at visitor centers.
Visitor sample characteristics
General Visitor Survey: Three-hundred and fifty-two of the
respondents to the general visitor survey were female; 251 were male (14
did not specify). Most were White (94.7 percent). Group sizes ranged
from one to 70, with a median group size of four. Most visited with
family (63.7 percent); 27.6 percent visited as a couple; 12.3 percent
visited with friends; 1.3 percent visited the park alone; and 0.8
percent visited with a tour group. Nearly half were visiting GRSM for
only part of one day or one full day; the other half visited the park
for more than one day (Table 4). Our results roughly mirror those found
in the most recent GRSM general visitor survey, which found about 78
percent of visitor groups to be made up of families; 9 percent friends;
and an additional 8 percent made up of family and friends
(Papadogiannaki et al., 2009). The earlier visitor survey also found 97
percent of visitors were White. These figures suggest that we achieved
close to a representative sample of park visitors. Sixty-seven (10.9
percent) of the general visitor survey respondents were characterized as
"local" based on their zip codes lying within one-hour's
drive from any park entrance.
On-site Program Attendee Survey: Of the 276 respondents surveyed
on-site just prior to interpretive programs, 117 were male, 156 were
female, and three did not specify their gender. Most respondents (90.6
percent) were White. Only 1.1 percent reported that they were alone on
their visit to the park; 5.1 percent visited with friends; 2.2 percent
were with tour groups; 10.1 percent visited as a couple; and 85.1
percent visited with family. More than half (52.6 percent) had been to
an interpretive program prior to this visit; 37.6 percent had been to
more than one such program. Twenty-six respondents (9.5 percent) lived
within a one-hour's drive of a park entrance and were thus
categorized as "local."
Awareness and Attendance
While a recent visitor survey suggested that only about 9 percent
of visitors attend interpretive programs on a given visit to GRSM during
the summer (Papadogiannaki & Hollenhorst, 2008), our results suggest
that more than a quarter of visitors have attended at least one
ranger-led program at GRSM on either this or a prior visit. Sixty-three
percent of the general visitor survey respondents were aware that the
park offered ranger-led programs, and 42.0 percent of those who were
aware that these programs existed reported having attended at least one
on either this or a previous visit. This accounts for 26.4 percent of
the entire sample. Of those who were aware of programs, 21.1 percent
attended one on this particular visit, reflecting 13.3 percent of the
entire sample.
A greater percentage of local respondents (73.1 percent) were aware
of ranger-led programs than non-locals (61.6 percent). Over one-third of
local respondents (35.8 percent) had attended a ranger-led program
either on this trip or before, compared to 25.7 percent of non-local
respondents. Nearly half (49.0 percent) of local respondents who were
aware of the existence of ranger-led programs had attended one compared
to 41.8 percent of non-local respondents who were aware. Forty-two
percent indicated they would be "extremely likely" to attend a
future program if they were to return to the park.
We also examined the relationship between program attendance and
the duration of visits to the park (see Table 4). More than half of the
survey respondents (54.3 percent) who stayed overnight in the park for
one night or more (25 out of 46 respondents) attended an interpretive
program; 31.7 percent who visited on four separate days or more attended
a program (20 out of 63 respondents). Meanwhile, only 8.2 percent of
those who visited the park on three or fewer separate days attended a
program (42 out of 515).
The most frequent attendees at live interpretive programs were
family groups; 16 percent of general visitor survey respondents who
visited the park with their families reported attending a live
interpretive program compared to 11 percent of those who visited with
friends and 8 percent of those who visited as a couple. Only one out of
the eight respondents who visited alone reported attending a program,
and none of the five respondents who visited with a tour group reported
program attendance.
The on-site survey of program attendees reflected a similar trend.
Most of the on-site sample (85.1 percent) was made up of family groups;
10.1 percent visited as a couple; 5.1 percent were with friends; 2.2
percent were with tour groups; and 1.1 percent visited the park alone.
No specific trends were observed in the types of programs attended by
specific groups except that, not surprisingly, families were more likely
to participate in Junior Ranger programs (Pearson [chi square]
statistic: 6.145; p = 0.013). Length of stay was not recorded in the
on-site program attendee surveys.
We coded the programs attended by respondents to the on-site survey
in terms of their primary focus: 47.8 percent attended primarily
nature-focused programs; 34.5 percent attended primarily
culturally-based programs, and 18.0 percent attended programs that
balanced both. Attendees at Junior Ranger programs made up 23.7 percent
of the sample.
Motivations for Attendance
We gauged respondents' motivations for attending park programs
in multiple ways. First, we asked all respondents (to either survey) who
attended a program to select their main reasons for attending from a
list comprised of the items in Table 5. The most common motivations
included entertainment, a chance to see attractions that they might
otherwise miss, accommodating other group members, and interest in
learning about a specific topic or place.
We examined the data to determine whether different types of
visitors professed different motivations for program attendance.
Differences were observed for family groups and visitors from the local
area. Family groups more commonly noted that the program would be good
for their group (Pearson [chi square] statistic = 6.3; p = 0.012) and
less commonly noted chance (Pearson [chi square] statistic = 4.5; p =
0.035) as primary motivations for program attendance. Local visitors
also less commonly noted chance (Pearson [chi square] statistic = 4.2; p
= 0.041) as a primary motivation and more commonly noted the opportunity
to develop new skills (Pearson [chi square] statistic = 5.1; p = 0.024).
Table 6 shows the frequency with which each motivation was selected
as "main reason for attending" different types of programs.
Programs that combined cultural heritage and environmental
interpretation, such as the popular Hayride around Cades Cove, were more
commonly associated with beliefs about revelation of the park's
unique attractions and less commonly attended by mere chance. Programs
offering tangible rewards, primarily Junior Ranger programs, were
particularly well attended by families with concerns for the enjoyment
of their entire group.
We also hypothesized, based on prior research (Absher & Graefe,
1997), that respondents' motivations for visiting the national park
might also influence their motivations to attend interpretive programs.
We asked respondents to the general visitor survey to indicate the
importance of each item listed in Table 7 in making their decision to
visit Great Smoky Mountains National Park on a scale of one to five with
three anchor points (1 = not important; 3 = somewhat important; 5 = very
important). We then performed independent samples t-tests to determine
whether any of these motivations were linked to program attendance. We
found no statistically significant relationships between any of these
motivations and program attendance. An additional 17 percent of
respondents wrote in "to see wildlife" as an important
motivation for visiting the park. These respondents showed no
significant trend in program attendance either.
Barriers to Attendance
The most likely barrier to attendance of live interpretive programs
in the park is a lack of awareness; 37 percent of respondents to the
general visitor survey reported that they were unaware that these
programs were offered. We asked those who were aware but did not attend
a program on this visit to select from a list of reasons why they did
not attend. We then asked them to select one reason that represented
their main reason for not attending (Table 8). We also provided an
open-ended write-in box. The most commonly reported reasons included
timing issues (either the respondent didn't feel they had enough
time or the timing was inconvenient), a preference to explore the park
on their own, and a lack of awareness of when or where the programs were
being held. Write-in responses included that respondents came to the
park with a specific purpose other than interpretation (e.g., riding
bikes, celebrating a family event), that respondents didn't know
the programs existed until too late in their visits, and that
respondents already knew enough about the likely topics of ranger-led
programs and therefore didn't need to attend them. The last reason
was reported by two local respondents.
Local respondents less commonly reported inconvenient timing as a
barrier than other respondents (Pearson [chi square]=4.55; p = 0.033).
Families were more concerned about whether the program would be good for
kids (Pearson [chi square]=9.61; p = 0.002). No other statistically
significant trends were observed regarding barriers to attendance for
different types of visitor groups.
Information Sources
All respondents (to both surveys) who attended a program were asked
to select from a list how they learned about it (Table 9). The most
common information sources were: The Smokies Guide (the park newspaper
available at the visitor centers), information boards at the visitor
centers, serendipity (just happened to see one going on), the
park's official website, and personal invitations from rangers. No
significant differences existed in information sources between local
visitors and non-locals. Thirteen out of 14 program attendees who
visited for only part of one day learned about the program they attended
by chance. Program attendees who visited the park on three or fewer
separate days were significantly more likely to find out about the
program by chance than those staying overnight or visiting for four or
more days (Pearson [chi square] statistic = 7.9; p = 0.005).
Comparing Ranger Perceptions to Visitor Responses
Table 10 summarizes the most common motivations, barriers, and
information sources reported by park rangers and visitors. Park rangers
predicted that interest in a specific topic or place, the offering of a
tangible reward or souvenir, and being in the right place at the right
time would be the strongest drivers of program attendance. The visitor
surveys suggest a wider range of important motivators for program
attendance, including entertainment, the chance to see something they
might have otherwise missed, and accommodating others in their group, in
addition to those most commonly suggested by interpretive rangers. The
surveys also revealed that local visitors to the park might be more
commonly interested in skills development programs than non-local
visitors.
Rangers predicted the most common barriers to attending live
programs would include a lack of awareness, inconvenient timing and
location, and preferences for a more solitary experience. These
perceptions are consistent with visitor responses.
Interpretive rangers thought the most effective information sources
about interpretive programs would be personal invitations from rangers,
followed by information boards at visitor centers. Program attendees
indicated that the Smokies Guide was by far the most common information
source, followed by information boards at a visitor center, chance
discovery, and the park's official website. Interpretive rangers,
meanwhile, ranked the website last in effectiveness. While rangers
predicted information boards at visitor centers would be less useful for
local visitors, this was not supported by the data. Local visitors were
just as likely to use this source as non-locals.
Discussion
The results provide some insights into potential techniques for
motivating interpretive program attendance. They also provide lessons
regarding the assumptions of interpretive rangers and different
techniques for soliciting data from visitors that could contribute to
ongoing adaptive management of interpretive program marketing.
Understanding and Motivating Program Attendance
The results suggest that more visitors are interested in programs
than actually attend. While 26.4 percent of the general visitor survey
respondents had attended a program at the time of the surveys, 42
percent indicated they would be "extremely likely" to attend a
future program if they were to return to the park. Moreover, only a few
of the most commonly noted barriers to program attendance reflect a
general lack of interest or likely persistent barrier: (1) a lack of
time; (2) a preference for solitary exploration of the park; and (3) a
desire to spend more time outside the park. These barriers account for
about two-thirds of those who didn't attend a program on this
visit. For other listed barriers, one could reasonably assume that
better marketing or timing could have stimulated attendance. As such, we
might assume that up to one-third of those not attending interpretive
programs might actually have been interested in doing so given better
marketing, locations, or timing of programs.
While increasing attendance at ranger-led programs might not be
appropriate in all cases (questions of resource impact and capacity
should be considered first), a number of lessons emerged that could help
the park increase program attendance. The most common motivations for
program attendance included entertainment, the chance to see things
visitors might otherwise miss, and opportunities to provide a good
experience for the whole group (particularly for families). While
visitors' interests vary tremendously with regard to subject
matter, interests in entertainment and seeing something special appear
to be more universal. This supports theories posited by Tilden, Ham, and
others regarding the importance of revelation and entertainment (Tilden,
1957; Ham, 1992). The park could take advantage of the belief that
ranger-led programs might expose the visitor to something he or she
might otherwise not get to see and build off interests in scenery
enjoyment, social experiences (particular for family groups), and
wildlife by using words and phrases like "reveal,"
"glimpse," "behind the scenes," "secrets,"
"best views," "chance to see wildlife,"
"fun," "great for kids," and similar themes.
A number of information sources for marketing programs appear to be
working well. The Smokies Guide, in particular, stands out as a
particularly effective tool amongst traditional information sources. As
predicted by interpretive rangers, chance (just being in the right place
at the right time) also plays a tremendous role in program attendance.
Thus, starting programs in conspicuous places and inviting visitors
on-site is likely to remain a highly effective strategy. The park might
also consider permanent signs with recognizable icons that could contain
updatable program scheduling information at some of the higher traffic
starting points. This could better address those visitors who don't
specifically seek out the experiences. The park website also serves as
an important source of information. Papadogiannaki and others (2009)
found that 89 percent of visitors sought some information prior to
visiting GRSM. Forty-one percent used maps or brochures and 30 percent
used the park website. The tendency to use maps/brochures and websites
is not unique to GRSM. A review of recent national park visitor surveys
conducted between 2003 and 2010 reveals significant percentages of
visitors to other parks also report using park websites (29 percent on
average) and maps/brochures (32 percent on average) to gather
information prior to visitation. When asked the preferred source of
information for future visits, the park's website ranked first in
preference at 31 of 32 parks (Park Studies Unit, 2010).
An examination of visitation patterns suggests that those in the
park for the shortest periods of time are least likely to attend a
program. Explicitly targeting these visitors with specific messaging
could increase program attendance. For example, "If you only have a
few hours (or one day) in the park, don't miss...." These
particular audiences may be less likely to use the Smokies Guide or
other formal sources for learning about programs. Those who attended
programs most commonly learned about them by chance. GRSM might consider
targeting programs for these groups at the most common stopping points
for these visitors. This finding likely applies to other parks as well,
especially those that, like GRSM, have no official staffed entrance at
which information can be distributed. No other major differences were
noted in these visitors' motivations, so targeting entertainment,
the chance to see things they might otherwise miss, and
family-friendliness in program marketing seems appropriate.
The surveys also revealed a few ways in which local visitors may
differ from non-local visitors. Visitors to GRSM from the local area
expressed greater interest in participating in skills-based programs.
Surprisingly, no significant differences were observed in information
sources, though three local respondents specifically indicated personal
communication with a park employee as their source of information. Prior
research confirms that many local residents rely on park staff as
sources of information about GRSM and other parks as well (Stern, 2010).
Targeted internal communications with local staff about the availability
of programs could prove fruitful.
Lessons for Future Monitoring for Adaptive Management
Active adaptive management emphasizes the adjustments of techniques
based on systematic monitoring of ongoing results (McCarthy &
Possingham, 2007). This involves setting up effective systems for
monitoring to enable learning relevant to management. We examined three
possible pathways for conducting such monitoring relevant to
interpretive program attendance at GRSM: (1) relying on rangers'
perceptions; (2) a general visitor survey; (3) an on-site survey of
attendees of interpretive programs. We compare these techniques in terms
of their relative efficiency and the data they have produced in this
study.
Clearly, the depth and breadth of data one can collect from the
more intensive general visitor surveys (conducted online or at home on
paper) go far beyond what one could reasonably collect on-site from
program attendees. The costs of these more intensive surveys, however,
are considerable, requiring an outside contractor to design the surveys,
solicit participation, manage data collection, and analyze the data. The
on-site surveys were far more limited in scope. While less costly from a
monetary perspective, the hidden costs of this technique might include
altering the mood of the audience just prior to an interpretive program,
distracting the interpretive ranger from interaction, and/or preparation
for the program, and slight delays in the program's start as people
finish the survey (we received no complaints from rangers associated
with this particular effort). Surveying attendees of interpretive
programs also requires the ranger to carry the survey materials to the
site and the completed materials after the survey. However, the
simplicity of the surveys gives us confidence that data collection and
analysis could take place without having to hire external researchers or
consultants every time the surveys are implemented. An initial training
in data collection and analysis, however, would be necessary.
The biggest difference in responses to the two visitor surveys is
that chance appeared to play a greater role for the general visitor
survey respondents than for on-site respondents. A probable explanation
for this finding is that respondents completing an internet or mail
survey received no on-site prompt to carefully consider why they had
attended a program. Meanwhile, on-site program attendees were prompted
by the survey to consider why they were there. This likely promoted
short discussions with their group, making a more specific reason likely
to emerge. While chance may have been the primary driver in these cases,
the survey cued additional consideration in respondents, potentially
over-inflating their significance. When considered in terms of
management implications, the on-site attendee survey still suggests the
importance of beginning programs in conspicuous areas where visitors can
join in serendipitously, though it may provide a wider suite of
motivations provided by the larger group. For the purposes of adaptive
management, we posit that this broader array of ideas collected on-site
is preferable, reflecting a wider array of variables influencing
different group members.
In the specific case of GRSM, the shorter on-site attendee surveys
proved sufficient for understanding motivations for program attendance,
the importance of different information sources, and general attendance
patterns. Rangers already appeared to have sufficient working
understandings of the barriers to program attendance. The barriers
reported in this study also mirrored those found in prior studies at
other parks (Morse, 1977; Knudson & Vanderford, 1980; Srisomyoung,
2000; Packer 2004), suggesting that motivations may be more elusive for
rangers to apprehend than barriers. Thus, GRSM and other parks might
achieve greatest efficiency though a periodic implementation of shorter
on-site surveys of attendees to interpretation programs at specified
time intervals or more targeted implementation when conditions, in
particular attendance patterns, seem to change.
Conclusions
The most commonly important motivations for interpretive program
attendance at GRSM included a desire to be entertained, a better chance
to actually see the park's unique attractions, and hopes for a good
group experience. The primary barriers included a lack of awareness,
visitors' perceptions of insufficient or inconvenient timing, and a
preference for a more solitary experience. In addition to providing some
ideas for increasing program attendance among different groups, the
study sheds some light on the value of visitor surveys. While
interpretive rangers appeared to have accurate perceptions regarding the
barriers to program attendance, the research uncovered a broader array
of motivations. In particular, rangers appear to have overestimated the
importance of specific topical interests and underestimated the
importance of entertainment and general revelation, or the chance to be
shown something they might otherwise miss.
References
Absher, J. D. & Graefe, A.R. (1997). Trip motives of
interpretive program attendees and nonattendees. Journal of
Interpretation Research, 2(1), 55-56.
Galloway, G. (2002). Psychographic segmentation of park visitor
markets: evidence for the utility of sensation seeking. Tourism
Management, 23, 581-596.
Ham, S. (1992). Environmental Interpretation: A Practical Guide for
People with Big Ideas and Small Budgets. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.
Ham, S. (2009). From interpretation to protection: is there a
theoretical basis? Journal of Interpretation Research, 14(2), 49-57.
Irving, R.L. (1986). Preferences of state and national park
visitors for interpretive methods: implications for program attendance.
Masters Thesis. Humboldt State University.
Knudson, D. M., & Vanderford, M. E. (1980). Participation in
interpretive programs by state park visitors. Journal of Interpretation,
5(2), 20-23.
McCarthy, M.A. & Possingham, H.P. (2007). Active adaptive
management for conservation. Conservation Biology, 21(4), 956-963.
Morse, P.J. (1977). A pilot study of attitudes of state park
visitor toward interpretive programs. M.A. Thesis. California State
University, Chico, CA. 125 pp.
Moscardo, G. (1999). Making Visitors Mindful: Principles for
Creating Sustainable Visitor Experiences through Effective
Communication. Champaign, Illinois: Sagamore Publishing.
Mullins, G.W. (1979). Participation and nonparticipation in
interpretation: A study of people, places, and activities. Ph.D.
Dissertation. Texas A & M University, College Station, TX.
National Park Service Public Use Statistics Office (2010). National
Park Service Public Use Statistics Office webpage. URL:
http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/index.cfm. Accessed November 1, 2010.
Ng, D. (1986). Determining the effects of information sources on
attendance at interpretive programs. Masters Thesis. University of
Idaho.
Packer, J.M. (2004). Motivational factors and the experience of
learning in educational leisure settings. PhD Dissertation. Centre for
Innovation and Learning. Queensland University of Technology.
Papadogiannaki, E. & Hollenhorst, S.J. (2008). Great Smoky
Mountains National Park Visitor Study, Draft Study, Summer 2008. Park
Studies Unit, Visitor Services Project, University of Idaho.
Papadogiannaki, E., Braak, A., Holmes, N., Eury, D., &
Hollenhorst, S.J. (2009). Great Smoky Mountains National Park Visitor
Study. Park Studies Unit, Visitor Services Project, University of Idaho,
Report 205. URL: http://www.psu.uidaho.edu/files/vsp/
reports/205.2%20GRSM_report.pdf. Accessed November1, 2010.
Park Studies Unit (2010). Visitor Survey Project Webpage.
University of Idaho. URL: http://www.psu.uidaho.edu/vsp.reports.htm
Powell, R. B., Kellert, S. R., & Ham, S. H. (2009).
Interactional theory and the sustainable nature-based tourism
experience. Society and Natural Resources, 28(8), 761-776.
Reyburn, J.H. (1974). Factors influencing attendance at
interpretive programs at five Indiana state parks. Masters Thesis.
Purdue University.
Sheehan, K. 2001. Email survey response rates: a review. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 6 (2). URL:
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue2/sheehan.html. Accessed September 1,
2009.
Srisomyoung, N. (2000). A study of park visitors; use of
interpretive programs at Lake Wissota State Park, WI. Masters Thesis.
University of Wisconsin--Stout.
Stern, M.J. (2010). Payoffs vs. process: Expanding the paradigm for
park/people studies beyond economic rationality. Journal of Sustainable
Forestry, 29(2-4), 174-201.
Tilden, F. (1957). Interpreting Our Heritage. Chapel Hill, NC:
University of North Carolina Press.
Veverka, J. (1978). A survey and analysis of selected park
visitor's motivations for attending environmental interpretation
programs. Masters Thesis. The Ohio State University.
Ward, C.W. & Wilkinson, A.E. (2006). Conducting Meaningful
Interpretation: A Field Guide for Success. Golden, CO: Fulcrum
Publishing.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Friends of Great Smoky Mountains
National Park.
Marc J. Stern
Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation
Virginia Tech, Mail code (0324)
Blacksburg, VA 24061
Phone: 540-231-7418
Fax: 540-231-3689
[email protected]
Robert B. Powell
Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management
Clemson University
[email protected]
Karen S. Hockett
Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation
Virginia Tech
[email protected]
Table 1. Interpretive rangers' perceptions of visitors' motivations %o
attend park interpretive programs (n= 13).
Cultural heritage
programs
Mean % selecting
Motivations scores (1) as top 5
Interest in specific topic or place 4.31 77%
Tangible reward offered (Junior Ranger 4.00 46%
badge or other take-home item)
Serendipity (just caught the person at 4.00 69%
the right time and place with nothing
else to do)
Desire to learn 3.92 77%
Convenient location 4.00 38%
Direct invitation from ranger 3.77 46%
Entertainment 3.46 38%
Values of visitor(s) are oriented toward 3.23 15%
preservation (in line with values of
Park Service)
Heard positive things from others 3.46 15%
about the program
Positive social experience 3.31 8%
Dragged along by friends or family 3.15 8%
Thought it would be good for others 2.85 0%
in group
Desire to tell friends about it 2.54 0%
Desire to be able no teach others 2.23 0%
Nice way to get exercise 2.08 0%
Environmental
programs
Mean % selecting
Motivations scores (1) as top 5
Interest in specific topic or place 4.54 85%
Tangible reward offered (Junior Ranger 4.23 46%
badge or other take-home item)
Serendipity (just caught the person at 4.08 38%
the right time and place with nothing
else to do)
Desire to learn 3.92 69%
Convenient location 3.92 31%
Direct invitation from ranger 3.77 31%
Entertainment 3.69 23%
Values of visitor(s) are oriented toward 3.69 38%
preservation (in line with values of
Park Service)
Heard positive things from others 3.46 8%
about the program
Positive social experience 2.92 8%
Dragged along by friends or family 3.00 8%
Thought it would be good for others 2.92 0%
in group
Desire to tell friends about it 2.46 8%
Desire to be able no teach others 2.46 0%
Nice way to get exercise 2.69 0%
(1) Scale: 1 = very rarely; 3 = somewhat common; 5 = extremely common.
Table 2. Interpretive rangers' perceptions of visitors' barriers to
attend park interpretive programs (n= 12). (1)
Cultural heritage
programs
Mean % selecting
Attendance Barriers scores (2) as top 5
Don't know about it 4.25 67%
Inconvenient time 3.83 50%
Inconvenient location 3.50 50%
Preference for more solitary/ 3.42 42%
self-guided visit
Duration (too long) 3.33 33%
Already done it before 3.00 25%
Disinterested in learning 3.00 33%
Worried about others in group 3.00 25%
(kids, seniors)
Worried about exertion 2.67 8%
Assumptions about costs or 2.50 17%
reservations
Values in conflict with ideals of 2.58 8%
the Park Service
Doubtful about the quality of the 2.50 17%
program
Discouraged by other group members 2.50 17%
(not cool)
Don't trust park rangers 2.00 0%
Environmental
programs
Mean % selecting
Attendance Barriers scores (1) as top 5
Don't know about it 4.42 67%
Inconvenient time 4.00 58%
Inconvenient location 3.83 58%
Preference for more solitary/ 3.67 50%
self-guided visit
Duration (too long) 3.42 33%
Already done it before 2.75 17%
Disinterested in learning 3.17 17%
Worried about others in group 2.75 17%
(kids, seniors)
Worried about exertion 3.17 33%
Assumptions about costs or 2.67 17%
reservations
Values in conflict with ideals of 2.50 0%
the Park Service
Doubtful about the quality of the 2.55 17%
program
Discouraged by other group members 2.83 8%
(not cool)
Don't trust park rangers 1.92 0%
(1) One ranger did not respond to this question.
(2) Scale: 1 = not important; 3 = somewhat important; 5 = very
important
Table 3. Interpretive rangers' perceptions of the effectiveness of
different sources of information in influencing attendance at
interpretive programs within the park (n= 13).
Information Pathways
Individuals Families Locals
Personal invitation from park
ranger at campground, visitor 2.83 2.92 2.50
center, or while roving
Personal invitation from
ranger at program meeting 2.67 2.67 2.25
place just prior to program
Info boards at visitor centers 2.33 2.42 1.82
Smokies Guide (Park newspaper) 2.25 2.33 1.82
Bulletin boards 2.24 2.33 1.64
Word-of-mouth 1.92 2.17 2.18
Park website 1.92 2.08 2.00
Newspaper (press releases) 2.17 1.92 2.45
Information Pathways Overall
Non-locals mean Rank
Personal invitation from park
ranger at campground, visitor 2.75 2.75 1
center, or while roving
Personal invitation from
ranger at program meeting 2.67 2.57 2
place just prior to program
Info boards at visitor centers 2.58 2.28 3
Smokies Guide (Park newspaper) 2.00 2.10 4
Bulletin boards 2.17 2.10 5
Word-of-mouth 2.00 2.06 6
Park website 2.25 2.06 7
Newspaper (press releases) 1.58 2.03 8
Scale: low(1), medium(2), and high(3) effectiveness
Table 4. Durations of stay for general visitor survey respondents
and program attendance (n =617).
Respondents staying for
Length of stay designated time period
Part of one day only 31.8%
One full day only 17.2%
Separate visits on 2 days 18.6%
Separate visits on 3 days 14.3%
Separate visits on 4 days 5.2%
Separate visits on 5 or more days 5.0%
Stayed in park one night 1.0%
Stayed in park 2 nights 2.1%
Stayed in park 3 nights 1.6%
Stayed in park 4 nights 0.3%
Stayed in park 5 nights 2.4%
Percent who attended a live
Length of stay interpretive program
Part of one day only 14.0%
One full day only 17.9%
Separate visits on 2 days 9.1%
Separate visits on 3 days 14.8%
Separate visits on 4 days 47.8%
Separate visits on 5 or more days 33.3%
Stayed in park one night 20.0%
Stayed in park 2 nights 70.0%
Stayed in park 3 nights 66.7%
Stayed in park 4 nights 100.0%
Stayed in park 5 nights 41.7%
Table 5. Percent of respondents selecting each as one of the main
reasons for attending a live interpretive program within Great
Smoky Mountains National Park.
General visitor
Reasons for attending interpretive program(s) survey (n=79)
I thought it would be entertaining 51.9%
I thought attending would provide a better 43.0%
chance to see the park's unique attractions
(wildlife, plants, etc.)
I thought it would be good for others in my 41.8%
group
I was interested in learning more a bout a 50.6%
specific topic or place
I thought it would be a safe way to 24.1%
experience the park
Chance: I just happened upon it 58.0%
A park ranger invited me personally 11.7%
I thought it would help me develop new 8.9%
skills
I heard from others it was a good program 7.6%
I thought it would provide inspiration [*] 86.6%
Someone else in my group made the decision 1.3%
for us to attend [*]
Other write-in (to teach children was most 3.8%
common write-in)
On-site survey
Reasons for attending interpretive program(s) survey (n=79)
I thought it would be entertaining 59.4%
I thought attending would provide a better 56.5%
chance to see the park's unique attractions
(wildlife, plants, etc.)
I thought it would be good for others in my 50.0%
group
I was interested in learning more a bout a 40.3%
specific topic or place
I thought it would be a safe way to 22.7%
experience the park
Chance: I just happened upon it 20.5%
A park ranger invited me personally 13.3%
I thought it would help me develop new 13.3%
skills
I heard from others it was a good program 10.1%
I thought it would provide inspiration [*] N/A
Someone else in my group made the decision N/A
for us to attend [*]
Other write-in (to teach children was most 7.2%
common write-in)
[*] The two items marked with an asterisk were not included in the
on-site survey due to length constraints.
Table 6. Percent of respondents of on-site survey selecting each
reason as one of the main reasons they attended the program (n = 276).
Mixed Cultural
focus focus
Reasons for attending interpretive progam(s) (n=61) (n=%)
I thought it would be entertaining 65.6% 63.4%
I thought attending would provide a better
chance to actually see the park's unique
attractions (wildlife, plants, etc.) 73.8% 47.3%
I thought it would be good for others in my 39.3% 53.8%
group
I was interested in learning more about a 39.3% 41.9%
specific topic or place
I thought it would be a safe way to 24.6% 20.4%
experience the park
Chance: I just happened upon it 9.8% 26.9%
I thought it would help me develop new 6.6% 12.9%
skills
a park ranger invited me personally 9.8% 8.6%
I heard from others it was a good program 9.8% 8.6%
Natural Tangible
focus reward
Reasons for attending interpretive progam(s) (55122) (n=7%)
I thought it would be entertaining 54.1% 58.7%
I thought attending would provide a better
chance to actually see the park's unique
attractions (wildlife, plants, etc.) 55.7% 42.7%
I thought it would be good for others in my 53.3% 66.7%
group
I was interested in learning more about a 40.2% 36.0%
specific topic or place
I thought it would be a safe way to 23.8% 17.3%
experience the park
Chance: I just happened upon it 21.3% 24.0%
I thought it would help me develop new 17.2% 14.7%
skills
a park ranger invited me personally 18.9% 14.7%
I heard from others it was a good program 11.5% 9.3%
Table 7. General visitor survey respondents' motivations for visiting
Great Smoky Mountains National Park (n= 617).
Reason (1 to 5 scale) Mean SD
To enjoy the scenery 4.72 0.54
To send quality time with friends or family 4.52 0.71
To escape from the everyday 4.34 0.86
To be immersed in nature 4.19 0.90
Interest in learning about nature 3.90 0.92
For inspiration 3.81 1.10
Interest in learning about cultural heritage 3.74 0.97
To get some exercise 3.74 1.03
To have some quiet time to reflect on my life 3.47 1.13
To have a challenging outdoor experience 3.03 1.14
To teach others 3.00 1.20
To build my skills in the outdoors 2.89 1.09
Someone else in my group) made the decision to 2.01 1.22
come to the park
Table 8. Reasons for not attending a live interpretive program for
general visitor survey respondents who expressed awareness of
programs.
Selected as a MAIN
Barrier to attendance reason (n=287)
We/I just: didn't have the time 35.5%
I prefer to explore the park on my own 30.3%
The timing was inconvenient 16.0%
I didn't know when they were offered 8.0%
I didn't know where they were offered 0.3%
I wasn't sure the kids in my group would like it 1.7%
I wanted to spend more time outside the park 0.7%
I wasn't sure others in my group would like it 1.7%
I wasn't interested in the specific topics) 0.3%
The location was inconvenient 0.3%
I didn't want to pay a fee [*] 0.3%
I thought I had to make a reservation 0.0%
I was worried about it being too difficult 0.3%
I didn't have anyone to go with 0.3%
I was doubtful of the quality of the program(s) 0.3%
The programs are too long 0.0%
[*] The survey noted the following at the bottom of the battery of
items: "NOTE: Almost all ranger-led programs are actually free of
charge."
Table 9. Information sources for those who attended programs
General visitor
Information source survey (n = 79)
The Smokies Guide (the Park newspaper) 35.4%
Information board at the visitor center 27.8%
I just happened to see one going on 51.8%
The Park's official website 16.5%
A ranger invited me while I was in the park 27.8%
Other visitors told me about it 11.4%
A bulletin board somewhere else in the park 11.4%
From hotel or information center outside the park 2.5%
Other website 1.3%
Television 2.5%
The local (non-Park) newspaper 1.3%
Radio 0.0%
Other write-in (book, family who lives here, have
seen programs in other parks, participated as a 6.4%
child, volunteer in campground)
On-site survey
Information source (n = 276)
The Smokies Guide (the Park newspaper) 39.6%
Information board at the visitor center 20.9%
I just happened to see one going on 12.2%
The Park's official website 18.3%
A ranger invited me while I was in the park 14.0%
Other visitors told me about it 7.9%
A bulletin board somewhere else in the park 7.6%
From hotel or information center outside the park 1.4%
Other website 1.4%
Television 0.0%
The local (non-Park) newspaper 0.4%
Radio 0.0%
Other write-in (book, family who lives here, have
seen programs in other parks, participated as a 11.2%
child, volunteer in campground)
Total
Information source (n = 355)
The Smokies Guide (the Park newspaper) 38.9%
Information board at the visitor center 22.5%
I just happened to see one going on 21.1%
The Park's official website 18.0%
A ranger invited me while I was in the park 17.2%
Other visitors told me about it 8.7%
A bulletin board somewhere else in the park 8.5%
From hotel or information center outside the park 1.7%
Other website 1.4%
Television 0.6%
The local (non-Park) newspaper 0.6%
Radio 0.0%
Other write-in (book, family who lives here, have
seen programs in other parks, participated as a 11.0%
child, volunteer in campground)
Table 10. Summary comparisons of top motivations, barriers, and
information sources cited by park interpreters and park visitors.
Respondent Top motivations Main barriers
Interpreters 1. Interest in topic 1. Ignorance
2. Tangible reward 2. Inconvenient time or
3. Serendipity location
3. Preference for
Solitude
Visitors 1. Entertainment 1. Ignorance
2. See unique 2. Lack of time
attractions/ interest 3. Preference for
in learning about solitude
topic
3. Good for others in
my group
Respondent Information sources
Interpreters 1. Personal Invitation
2. Information boards
3. Smokies Guide/
Bulletin Boards
Visitors 1. Smokies Guide
2. Information boards
3. Serendipity
4. Website
