Exploring empirical support for interpretation's best practices.

Skibins, Jeffrey C. ; Powell, Robert B. ; Stern, Marc J. 等

Introduction

Less than 20 years after Freeman Tilden published his six principles in 1957, interpretation had grown into a sophisticated communication vehicle crafted to influence audiences' knowledge, awareness, and satisfaction, as well as a strategic tool to cultivate agency image and accomplish mission-based management objectives (Sharpe, 1976). A contributing factor to this growth was the broadening of interpretation's theoretical foundations and applications. When Enos Mills (2001) wrote, "Te nature guide finds treasure to right and left for his followers in territory which to most people appears barren" (p. 138), it may have seemed unlikely, although not improbable, that interpretation would emerge as a major component of natural resource management (Cable, Knudson, Udd, & Stewart, 1987; Ham, 2010), tourism (Ham & Weiler, 2002; B. Weiler & Ham, 2001), and visitor satisfaction models (Morgan & Dong, 2008).

Modern roles of interpretation are highly varied, and the principles guiding the delivery of interpretive programming and messages have undergone numerous revisions over the past 90 years. However, one consistent theme remains: that of, "through interpretation, understanding; through understanding, appreciation; through appreciation, protection." This anonymous quote, attributed by Tilden (1957, p. 38) to a U.S. National Park Service administrative manual has become a core philosophy of interpretation. In a recent essay, Ham (2010) addressed the validity of this widely adopted statement, made in the absence of evidence. Drawing on support from cognitive and social psychology, Ham teases apart each phrase and provides theoretical support to the causality of the proposed chain of events.

An important point that emerges from Ham's (2010) essay is that it is necessary to critically examine widely held beliefs about the efficacy and value of interpretation in light of modern understandings of communication and psychology. While there is much anecdotal evidence to support the basic principles of interpretation, there is often a gap in empirical evidence for whether these principles influence visitor outcomes such as knowledge, awareness, and behavior and if so, how they do so. Further difficulties arise due to the proliferation of recommended best practices, definitions and principles.

In the midst of this continued growth, a single universal set of best practices for interpretation is somewhat elusive. Despite, or perhaps due to, widespread use by numerous agencies in highly varied settings with highly diverse audiences, interpretation in both theory and practice is difficult to evaluate across contextual boundaries (Ham & Krumpe, 1996). Also complicating the matter are the multi-disciplinary roots of interpretation. For example, many best practices for interpretation draw from theoretical and empirical work in the fields of education, communication, and psychology, and each of these have their own set of assumptions and limitations regarding practical applications.

Although specific definitions and applications may vary across texts, most empirical evaluations and researchers seek to understand the influence of interpretation on the visitor, resource, agency, and/or community. Generally, these research approaches investigate the efficacy of one program in a particular context in an effort to measure outcomes and improve programming. This approach does not allow researchers to isolate particular programmatic characteristics or compare multiple programs in an effort to tease out what best practices lead to desired outcomes under particular conditions.

To gain a better understanding of empirical support for the influence of consensus-based best interpretive practices on visitor outcomes, we 1) compiled a list of best practices from professionally acknowledged key sources, and 2) reviewed interpretive research designed to measure the influence of programs on visitor satisfaction, awareness, knowledge, attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Our goals were to document which best practices were present in the programs being evaluated and to uncover trends and relationships between best practices and outcomes. In doing so, we are also able to characterize general trends in recent evaluation research of interpretive programs.

Methods

To differentiate interpretation from other forms of communication and education, we used Tilden's (1957) definition of interpretation, which is: "An educational activity which aims to reveal meanings and relationships through the use of original objects, by firsthand experience, and by illustrative media, rather than simply to communicate factual information" (p 8). We further clarified interpretation as public programs regarding a site's natural and cultural resource themes, which can be both formal, scheduled activities and informal contacts.

Te two primary objectives of this study were to 1) produce a consensus-based list of interpretive best practices that appear theoretically important for predicting outcomes and could be empirically evaluated, and 2) perform a meta-analysis (Salkind, 2009) of peer reviewed literature to investigate the influence of these practices on six visitor outcomes (attitudes, awareness, behavior, behavioral intentions, knowledge, satisfaction). Consistent with Creswell (2007), we determined consensus within key texts by identifying consistently described practices and based on saturation (i.e., no new best practices emerged). Our meta-analysis followed Salkind's (2009) recommended steps and was performed by: collecting a representative group of studies on a particular phenomenon, designating a common metric for comparison across studies, designating a coding structure for independent variables, and lastly performing a series of descriptive or correlational techniques to examine the outcomes of the studies as a whole.

Identification of Best Practices

To create a list of best practices, we selected and reviewed 18 key sources used for interpretive training (Table 1). These sources were selected on the basis of their influence in developing practitioner training and certification programs, as well as professional recommendations. Sources were also identified from NAI's certification program and NPS training manuals. Texts that focused on interpretive planning were excluded. Next, we followed steps recommended by Creswell (2007), such as identifying consistently described practices across all texts to develop the list of consensus-based best practices.

Meta-Analysis Article Selection

We selected articles that explicitly aimed to measure the influence of exposure to an interpretive program on at least one of the visitor outcomes. To be included in the study, articles also needed to provide a detailed enough description of the interpretation for us to be able to identify program characteristics associated with our identified best practices. Interpretive "programs" included first-person programming, mixed media presentations, signage, printed materials/brochures, and self-guided experiences.

To find articles for the meta-analysis, we reviewed all published abstracts between 1996 and August 2009 from the following journals: Journal of Ecotourism, Journal of Interpretation Research, Journal of Leisure Research, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Leisure Sciences, and Society and Natural Resources. This review produced 37 articles that met our criteria. To further expand our sample size, the literature cited in the initial 37 articles was reviewed to find additional studies that met our criteria. EBSCO and Web of Science were also used to generate citation maps of the initial 37 articles. These supplemental searches generated 33 additional articles. A total of 70 articles from 24 journals were selected for the meta-analysis. Articles excluded by our criteria were meta-analyses, theory reviews, and management framework recommendations and analyses. Additionally excluded were articles in which the evaluated audience was not visitors or the direct recipients of interpretation. Non-peer reviewed ("grey") literature was excluded from this study as there is no consistent heuristic to assess experimental rigor, nor is there a systematic method for retrieving the literature, such as abstract review. Te following is a summary of the criteria used to select research articles included in this analysis:

* There was clear evidence that subjects were exposed to an interpretive program

* At least one outcome (attitudes, awareness, behavior, behavioral intentions, knowledge, or satisfaction) was empirically assessed

* Assessment of outcome(s) was conducted by sampling the recipients of interpretation

* A description of the interpretive program was sufficient enough to identify the presence of program characteristics associated with identified best practices

Article Coding

We coded each of the 70 articles for: type of interpretation offered; audience demographics; location; presence/absence of the 17 best practices; and which of the six outcomes was being assessed. Several articles assessed more than one outcome. Te presence of best practices was inferred from the description of the interpretive delivery system. It was possible to record the presence of multiple best practices within a single article.

Operational Definitions of Assessed Visitor Outcomes

Te following are the definitions and sources used to code the assessed outcomes reported in the 70 articles selected for the meta-analysis.

* Attitudes: individual participants' change in attitude toward subject of interpretation (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977).

* Awareness: individual participants' change in recognition or cognizance of issues or concepts.

* Behavior: individual participants' self-reported behavior change/reinforcement, or staff observations of behavior change/reinforcement following exposure to interpretation (e.g., Powell & Ham, 2008).

* Behavioral Intentions: individual participants' self-reported intent to change a behavior after exposure to interpretation (Powell & Ham, 2008; Powell, Kellert, & Ham, 2009).

* Knowledge: individual participants' change in knowledge of subject after exposure to interpretation.

* Satisfaction: individual participants' overall satisfaction or enjoyment levels associated with the interpretive experience (R. L. Oliver, 1993; Powell & Ham, 2008).

Results

Best Practices

From the 18 key instructional texts, we identified 17 best practices for interpretation. Table 2 identifies each best practice and its corresponding definition and citations. Of the 17 best practices, 13 are applicable to any of the six visitor-based outcomes, while four are specific to influencing behavior and/or behavioral intentions.

Meta-analysis

A total of 70 articles from 24 journals were selected for the meta-analysis. Table 3 presents a summary of the characteristics of the interpretive programs evaluated by these 70 articles. Within our sample, 84% of the articles evaluated interpretation for the general public (i.e. not specific/special interest groups), and 81% of sampled studies dealt with non-captive audiences (audiences that are free to leave a program) (Ham, 1992). First-person interpretation was the predominant delivery method (57%). Studies were most frequently conducted in the United States of America (60%) and Australia (30%). Of the remaining locations, studies were conducted exclusively by western, i.e., nonresident, researchers.

Table 4 presents a summary of research designs and methods employed in the 70 articles. The studies were predominantly quantitative (76%). Twenty-four percent of the studies employed qualitative methods, but only 11% of these articles were solely qualitative. Most (78%) of the studies assessed outcomes immediately after a program. Longer-term assessments (i.e. one week or more post-program) occurred in 22% of the studies.

Of the 70 articles, 25 evaluated more than one outcome (Tables 5 & 6). This yielded a total of 111 evaluations of outcomes. Results reported for outcomes and program characteristics analyses are therefore calculated on a sample size of 111. Of the six outcome categories, knowledge and attitudes were measured in the largest number of studies, 33% and 23%, respectively. Only 22 (20%) of the 111 evaluations reported results that had no effect on the outcome. Within studies reporting no influence on an outcome, attitude was the most common, with eight evaluations.

The most common best practices (program characteristics) reported in the articles were: resource and place-based messaging (53%), actively engaging the audience (51%), thematic development (49%), cognitive & affective messaging (49%), and multisensory (47%) (Table 7). An example of how each of these best practices were reported in the studies follows.

* Resource and place-based messaging: Powell and Ham (2008) report that the interpretation on the Galapagos Islands tour focused on topics directly related to daily experiences with the wildlife and the conservation issues of the islands.

* Actively engage audience: Wiles and Hall (2005) describe how interpreters interacted with visitors, "They also attempted to personalize the message in ways that would cause people to reflect on their own lives." (p. 22)

* Thematic development: "The thematic version of the interpretive program included a theme. (Bats are the most misunderstood creatures of the night.)" (Tarlton & Ward, 2006, p. 13).

* Cognitive and affective messaging: Wiles and Hall (2005) describe affective messaging as incorporating emotionally arousing elements, such as birth or death, and cognitive messaging as focusing on factual information (e.g., fire nutrient cycle).

* Multisensory: Orams (1997) describes the "dolphin experience" as including direct interaction with the dolphin, first-person interpretation, signs, posters, and video presentations.

Best practices were associated with assessed outcomes a total of 394 times. Several papers evaluated more than one outcome, and most reported the employment of multiple best practices. Table 8 lists how often each best practice was associated with an outcome and the number and percentage of times that association was positive. For example, of the 25 times that attitudes were evaluated at the programmatic level, 40 pairings with particular best practices were generated. Of those pairings, 55% were correlated with positive outcomes. When examining the performance of each individual best practice, most were related to predominantly positive outcomes at similar rates. Overall, the hypothesized best practices had a positive influence on outcomes in 84% of pairings (331/394).

When examining the relationship between outcomes and the group of best practices collectively, knowledge had the most pairings (n=169; 43%) and was positively influenced in 86% of pairings. Positive linkages were also noted in 86% of the 66 measurements of awareness. Satisfaction was positive in 88% of 57 pairings; intentions were positive in 89% of the 44 observed pairings; attitudes were positive in 55% of 40 the observed pairings; and behavioral outcomes were positive in 67% of 18 the observed pairings.

Discussion

Interpretation is a highly adaptable tool that can be used to fulfill a variety of strategic goals. It has been used to enhance visitors' enjoyment (e.g., Powell & Ham, 2008), awareness of park resources, and knowledge (e.g., Powell, et. al., 2009). Interpretation has also been shown to influence visitor behaviors such as: decreasing vandalism (Ward, 2003), minimizing resource impact (Marion, 2007), and fostering adoption of long-term pro-environmental behaviors (Wallace & Gaudry, 2002). To better understand how interpretation could be utilized to influence visitor outcomes, this study had two main objectives. The first objective was to develop a list of consensus-based best practices by reviewing 18 key sources (Table 1) used for interpretive training. This review produced a list of 17 best practices (Table 7) that could influence visitor outcomes. Our second objective was to examine the empirical evidence for those best practices' ability to influence the six visitor-based outcomes.

Within the 70 articles selected, our analysis identified 394 pairings of a best practice with a visitor outcome (Table 8). Overall, these pairings provide general support for each of the hypothesized best practices (84% of pairings show a positive influence). However, this support is tempered by several limiting trends that were revealed regarding the current state of interpretation research. The first trend is the relatively small sample size for specific pairings of best practices and outcomes. In many instances, a best practice was associated with a visitor outcome fewer than five times, and several best practices had no pairings with an outcome. Additionally, few articles attempted to isolate the effect of a specific best practice. Thus, while each hypothesized best practice had similar percentages of positive influences on outcomes, we cannot generalize about relative effectiveness.

Another limiting trend was the often incomplete descriptions of the interpretive program being evaluated. Authors may not have fully described all aspects of a program, choosing to focus on a subset of program characteristics in their studies. As a result, we could not confirm the absence of any given best practice from the interpretive programs under study. This may have led to an under-identification of certain best practices. Furthermore, articles did not directly address the quality or quantity of a best practice. Therefore, the presence or absence of a best practice only reflects the program's design rather than the quality of its implementation.

A third limiting trend was that most articles reported only positive findings, suggesting the possibility that negative or null results may be published less frequently. This trend was evidenced by the high number of pairings showing a positive influence on all six visitor outcomes (Table 8). Even attitudes and behaviors, which had the lowest total number of positive pairings, 55% and 67% respectively, show a strong trend of reporting positive findings.

A possible explanation for this trend may be the predominance of short-term pre/ post testing. Of the 111 evaluated outcomes, only five evaluations conducted a post-test more than six months following the event. If Tilden's (1957) and Beck and Cable's (2002) principles for interpretation are used as foundations, then long-term influence of visitor outcomes should be more routinely assessed. Additionally, given the current abundance of knowledge evaluations, future researchers should carefully consider if knowledge is indeed the outcome they wish to measure. Due to the relative ease of measuring a change in knowledge, it may be tempting to gauge the overall effectiveness of an interpretive program simply via an increase in knowledge. However, if one bears in mind the goal of provocation over instruction as well as a life-long change in understanding and action (Ham, 2010), short-term assessments of knowledge through pre/post tests appear to be of minimal significance.

Conclusion

If long-term management of the resource is reliant upon sustainable use by visitors, and interpretation is shown to have a positive influence on visitor attitudes, intentions and behavior, then these outcomes need to be explored more fully. A more nuanced understanding of changes to these visitor outcomes can provide managers support for prioritizing projects and funding. By explicitly linking best practices with outcomes, managers can improve the context for applying interpretation, and thus better fulfill strategic initiatives (Brochu, 2003; Jacobson, 1999).

As we attempt to better understand how best practices influence interpretation, future research could incorporate methods that are more explicit, attempt multiprogram comparisons, and seek to isolate best practices. Studies could also be designed to specifically address gaps in our knowledge of under-studied outcomes and best practices. For example, specific behaviors such as philanthropy or volunteering may be linked with theme development, cognitive and affective messaging, or place-based messaging to improve visitor support. Additionally, we encourage researchers to provide more detailed descriptions of programs under study so that readers may have a greater ability to identify best practices. Furthermore, practitioners and researchers alike need to prioritize resources to advocate for more long-term follow up studies as well as support dissemination of null or negative findings.

Understanding how to bridge our gap in understanding the link of best practices to outcomes will be an important function of interpretation research in the 21st century (Knapp & Benton, 2004). By undertaking multi-program comparisons that isolate specific practices or groups of practices and their link to specific outcomes, researchers can provide empirically supported and useful benchmarks for delivering successful interpretation.

References

Adelman, L., M., Falk, J., H., & James, S. (2000). Impact of National Aquarium in Baltimore on visitors' conservation attitudes, behavior, and knowledge. Curator, 43, 33-61.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations - Theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888-918.

Anderson, D. H., & Fulton, D. C. (2008). Experience preferences as mediators of the wildlife related recreation participation: Place attachment relationship. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 13, 73-88.

Armstrong, E. K., & Weiler, B. (2002). Getting the message across: An analysis of messages delivered by tour operators in protected areas. Journal of Ecotourism, 1(2&3), 104-121.

Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K. (2006). Using front-end and formative evaluation to design and test persuasive bird feeding warning signs. Tourism Management, 27, 235-246.

Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Beckmann, E. (1998). Targeted intepretation: Exploring relationships among visitors' motivations, activities, attitudes, information needs and preferences. Journal of Tourism Studies, 9, 14-25.

Beaumont, N. (2001). Ecotourism and the conservation ethic: Recruiting the uninitiated or preaching to the converted? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9, 317-341.

Beck, L., & Cable, T. T. (2002). Interpretation for the 21st century: Fifteen guiding principles for interpreting nature and culture (2nd ed.). Champaign: Sagamore.

Beckman, E. (1999). Evaluating visitors' reactions to interpretation in Australian National Parks. Journal of Interpretation Research, 4(1), 5-20.

Benton, G. M. (2009). From principle to practice. Journal of Interpretation Research, 14, 7-31.

Bright, A., D., Fishbein, M., Manfredo, M. J., & Bath, A. (1993). Application of the theory of reasoned action to the National Park Service's controlled burn policy. Journal of Leisure Research, 25, 263-280.

Brochu, L. (2003). Interpretive planning: The 5-M model for successful planning projects. Fort Collins: InterpPress.

Brochu, L., & Merriman, T. (2002). Personal interpretation: Connecting your audience to heritage resources: InterpPress.

Brody, M., Hall, R., Tomkiewicz, W., Graves, J. (2002). Park visitors' understandings, values and beliefs related to their experience at Midway Geyser Basin, Yellowstone National Park, USA. International journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1119-1141.

Cable, T. T., Knudson, D. M., Udd, E., & Stewart, D. J. (1987). Attitude changes as a result of exposure to interpretive messages. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 5(1), 47-60.

Carr, A. (2004). Mountain places, cultural spaces: The interpretation of culturally significant landscapes. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12, 432-459.

Christensen, A., Rowe, S., & Needham, M., D. (2007). Value orientations, awareness of consequences, and participation in a whale watching education program in Oregon. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 12, 289-293.

Cole, D., N., Hammond, T., P., & McCool, S., F. (1997). Information quantity and communication effectiveness: Low-impact messages on wilderness trailside bulletin boards. Leisure Sciences, 19, 59-72.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.): Sage Publications.

Dierking, L., Adelman, L., Ogden, J., Lehnhardt, K., Miller, L., & Mellen, J. (2004). Using a behavior change model to document the impact of visits to Disney's Animal Kingdom: a study investigating intended conservation action. Curator: The Museum Journal, 47(3), 322-343.

DiMauro, D., Dietz, T. (2001). Assessment of an interpretive program for U.S. Coast Guard personnel. Conservation Biology, 15(3), 776-779.

Engels, C. A., Jacobson, S. K. (2007). Evaluating long-term effects of the golden lion tamarin environmental education program in Brazil. The Journal of Environmental Education, 38(3), 3-14.

Falk, J., H., & Adelman, L., M. (2003). Investigating the impact of prior knowledge and interest on aquarium visitor learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 163-176.

Falk, J., Storksdieck, M. (2005). Using the contextual model of learning to understand visitor learning from a science center exhibition. Science Education, 89(4), 744-778.

Frauman, E., Norman, W. C. (2003). Managing visitors via "mindful" information services: One approach in addressing sustainability. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 21(4), 87-104.

Goldman, T. L., Chen, W. J., Larsen, D. L. (2001). Clicking the icon: Exploring the meanings visitors attach to three national capital memorials. Journal of Interpretation Research, 6(1), 3-30.

Gramann, J., H. (2000). Protecting park resources using interpretation. Park Science, 20, 34-36.

Ham, S. H. (1992). Environmental interpretation: A practical guide for people with big ideas and small budgets. Golden: Fulcrum.

Ham, S. H. (2010). From interpretation to protection: Is there a theoretical basis? Journal of Interpretation Research, 14(2).

Ham, S. H., Brown, T., Curtis, J., Weiler, B., Hughes, M., & Poll, M. (2007). Promoting Persuasion in Protected Areas: A guide for managers. Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre.

Ham, S. H., & Krumpe, E. E. (1996). Identifying audiences and messages for nonformal environmental education - a theoretical framework for interpreters. Journal of Interpretation Research, 1, 11-23.

Ham, S. H., & Weiler, B. (2002). Toward a theory of quality in cruise-based interpretive guiding. Journal of Interpretation Research, 7, 29-50.

Ham, S. H., & Weiler, B. (2007). Isolating the role of on-site interpretation in a satisfying experience. Journal of Interpretation Research, 12, 5-24.

Hockett, K. S., Hall, T. E. (2007). The effect of moral and fear appeals on park visitors' beliefs about feeding wildlife. Journal of Interpretation Research, 12(1), 5-27.

Hostetler, M., Swiman, E., Prizzia, A., & Noiseux, K. (2008). Reaching residents of green communities: Evaluation of a unique environmental education program. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 7, 114-124.

Hughes, M., Morrison-Saunders, A. (2002). Impact of trail-side interpretive signs on visitor knowledge. Journal of Ecotourism, 1(2&3), 122-132.

Hughes, M., Morrison-Saunders, A. (2005a). Influence of on-site interpretation intensity on visitors to natural areas. Journal of Ecotourism, 4(3), 161-177.

Hughes, M., Morrison-Saunders, A. (2005b). Interpretation, activity participation, and environmental attitudes of visitors to Penguin Island, Western Australia. Society & Natural Resources, 18, 611-624.

Hwang, Y.-H., Kim, S.-I., & Jeng, J.-M. (2000). Examining the causal relationships among selected antecendents of responsible environmental behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31, 19-25.

Jacobson, S. K. (1999). Communication skills for conservation professionals. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Knapp, D. (2006). The development of semantic memories through interpretation. Journal of Interpretation Research, 11(2), 21-35.

Knapp, D., & Barrie, E. (1998). Ecology versus issue interpretation: The analysis of two different messages. Journal of Interpretation Research, 3(1), 21-38.

Knapp, D., & Benton, G. M. (2004). Elements to successful interpretation: A multiple case study of five national parks. Journal of Interpretation Research, 9(2), 9-25.

Knapp, D., & Benton, G. M. (2005). Long-term recollections of an environmental interpretive program. Journal of Interpretation Research, 10(1), 51-54.

Knapp, D., & Poff, R. (2001). A qualitative analysis of the immediate and shor-term impact of an environmental interpretive program. Environmental Education Research, 7(1), 55-64.

Knapp, D., & Yang, L. (2002). A phenonmenological analysis of long-term recollections of an interpretive program. Journal of Interpretation Research, 7(2), 7-18.

Knopf, R., C. (1981). Cognitive map formation as a tool for facilitating information transfer in interpretive programming. Journal of Leisure Research, 13, 232-242.

Knudson, D. M., Cable, T. T., & Beck, L. (2003). Interpretation of cultural and natural resources (2nd ed.). State College: Venture Publishing.

Lackey, B. K., & Ham, S. H. (2003). Contextual analysis of interpretation foucused on human-black bear conflicts in Yosemite National Park. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 2, 11-21.

Lewis, W. J. (2005). Interpreting for park visitors (9th ed.). Fort Washington: Eastern National.

Liu, S.-T., Kaplan, M. S. (2006). An intergenerational approach for enriching children's environmental attitudes and knowledge. applied Environmental Education and Communication, 5, 9-20.

Lukas, K. E., & Ross, S. R. (2005). Zoo visitor knowledge and attitudes toward gorillas and chimpanzees. Journal of Environmental Education, 36, 33-48.

Madin, E. M. P., Fenton, D. M. (2004). Environmental intepretation in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: An assessment of programme effectiveness. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(2), 121-137.

Marion, J. L., Reid, S. E. (2007). Minimising visitor impacts to protected areas: The efficacy of low impact education programmes. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(1), 5-27.

Mills, E. (2001). Adventures of a nature guide. Estes Park: Temporarl Mechanical Press.

Morgan, M. (2009). Interpretation and place attachment theory: Implications for cognitive map theory. Journal of Interpretation Research, 14(1), 47-59.

Morgan, M., Absher, J., Loudon, B., & Sutherland, D. (1997). The relative effectiveness of interpretive programs directed by youth and adult naturalists in a national forest. Journal of Interpretation Research, 2(1), 13-26.

Morgan, M., Absher, J., & Whipple, R. (2003). The benefits of naturalist-led interpretive programs: Implications for user fees. Journal of Interpretation Research, 8(1), 41-54.

Morgan, M., & Dong, X. D. (2008). Measuring passenger satisfaction of interpretive programming on two Amtrak trains in the midwest. Journal of Interpretation Research, 13(2), 43-58.

Moscardo, G. (1999a). Communicating with two million tourists: A formative evaluation of an interpretive brochure. Journal of Interpretation Research, 4(1), 21-38.

Moscardo, G. (1999b). Making visitors mindful: Principles for creating quality sustainable visitor experiences through effective communication. Champaign: Sagamore.

National Park Service. Module 101: Fulfilling the NPS mission: The process of interpretation (2003).

National Park Service. Module 103: Preparing and presenting an effective interpretive talk (2003).

National Park Service. Module 210: Prepare and present an effective conducted activity (2003).

National Park Service. Module 220: Prepare and present an interpretive demonstration or other illustrated program (2003).

National Park Service. Module 230: Interpretive writing (2003).

National Park Service. Module 311: Interpretive media development (2003).

Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. Journal of Consumer Research, 418-430.

Oliver, S., S., Roggenbuck, J., W., & Watson, A., E. (1985). Education to reduce impacts in forest campgrounds. Journal of Forestry, 83, 234-236.

Orams, M. B. (1997). The effectiveness of environmental education: Can we turn tourists into 'Greenies'? Progress in Tourism and Hospitality, 3, 295-306.

Porter, A. L., Howard, J. L. (2002). Warning visitors about the potential dangers of dingoes on Fraser Island, Queensland, Australia. Journal of Interpretation Research, 7(2), 51-64.

Povey, K. D., Rios, J. (20002). Using interpretive animals to deliver affective messages in zoos. Journal of Interpretation Research, 7(2), 19-28.

Powell, R. B., & Ham, S. H. (2008). Can ecotourism interpretation really lead to proconservation knowledge, attitudes and behaviour? Evidence from the Galapagos islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(4), 467-489.

Powell, R. B., Kellert, S. R., & Ham, S. H. (2008). Antarctic tourists: Ambassadors or consumers? Polar Record, 44(230), 230-241.

Powell, R. B., Kellert, S. R., & Ham, S. H. (2009). Interactional Theory and the Sustainable Nature-Based Tourism Experience. Society & Natural Resources, 22(8), 761-776. doi: 10.1080/08941920802017560

Randall, C., Rollins, R. B. (2009). Visitor perceptions of the role of tour guides in natural areas. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(3), 357-374.

Ryan, C., Dewar, K. (1995). Evaluating the communication process between interpreter and visitor. Tourism Management, 16(4), 295-303.

Salkind, N. J. (2009). Exploring research (7th ed.): Pearson.

Sharpe, G. W. (1976). Interpreting the environment. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Silverman, L. H., Masberg, B. A. (2001). Through their eyes: The meaning of heritage site expxeriences to visitors who are blind or visually impaired. Journal of Interpretation Research, 6(1), 31-47.

Smith, L., Broad, S., & Weiler, B. (2008). A Closer Examination of the Impact of Zoo Visits on Visitor Behaviour. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(5), 544-562.

Stewart, E. J., Hayward, B., M., & Devlin, P., J. (1998). The "place" of interpretation: a new approach to the evaluation of interpretation. Tourism Management, 19, 257-266.

Swanagan, J. S. (2000). Factors influencing zoo visitors' conservation attitudes and behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(4), 26-31.

Tarlton, J. L., Ward, C. J. (2006). The effect of thematic interpretation on a child's knowledge of an interpretive program. Journal of Interpretation Research, 11(1), 7-33.

Tilden, F. (1957). Interpreting our heritage (3rd ed.). Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

Tubb, K. N. (2003). An evaluation of the effectiveness of interpretation within Dartmoor Naitonal Park in reaching the goals of sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(6), 476-497.

Veverka, J. A. (1998). Interpretive master planning: the essential planning guide for interpretive centers, parks, self-guided trails, historic sites, zoos, exhibits and programs (2nd ed.). Tustin: Acorn Naturalists.

Wallace, G. N., & Gaudry, C. J. (2002). An evaluation of the "authority of the resource" interpretive technique by rangers in eight wilderness/backcountry areas. Journal of Interpretation Research, 7, 43-68.

Ward, C. W., Roggenbuck, J. (2003). Understanding park visitors' response to interventions to reduce petrified wood theft. Journal of Interpretation Research, 8(1), 67-82.

Weiler, B. (1999). Assessing the interpretation competencies of ecotour guides. Journal of Interpretation Research, 4(1), 80-83.

Weiler, B., & Ham, S. H. (2001). Tour guides and interpretation In D. Weaver (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Ecotourism (pp. 549-564). Wellington: CAB International

Weiler, B., & Smith, L. (2009). Does more interpretation lead to greater outcomes? An assessment of the impacts of multiple layers of interpretation in a zoo context. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(1), 91-105.

Widner-Ward, C., & Wilkinson, A. E. (2006). Conducting meaningful interpretation: A field guide for success. Golden: Fulcrum.

Widner, C. J., Roggenbuck, J. (2000). Reducing theft of petrified wood at Petrified Forest National Park. Journal of Interpretation Research, 5(1), 1-18.

Wiles, R., Hall, T. E. (2005). Can interpretive messages change park visitors' views on wildland fire? Journal of Interpretation Research, 10(2), 18-37.

Winter, P., L., Cialdini, R., B., Bator, R., J., Rhoads, K., & Sagarin, B., J. (1998). An analysis of normative messages in signs at recreation settings. Journal of Interpretation Research, 3, 39-47.

Winter, P., L., Sagarin, B., J., Rhoads, K., Barrett, D., W., & Cialdini, R., B. (2000). Choosing to encourage or discourage: Perceived effectiveness of prescriptive versus proscriptive messages. Environmental Management, 26, 589-594.

Winter, P. L. (2006). The impact of normative message types on off-trail hiking. Journal of Interpretation Research, 11(1), 35-54.

Zeppel, H., Muloin, S. (2008). Conservation benefits of interpretation on marine wildlife tours. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 12, 280-294.

Jeffrey C. Skibins

Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management

Clemson University

128 McGinty Court

263 Lehotsky Hall

Clemson, SC 29634-0735

(630) 234-5909 phone

(864) 656-2226 fax

[email protected]

Robert B. Powell

Clemson University

Marc J. Stern

Virginia Tech Table 1. Sources used to identify best practices Source/Title Year Author(s) Interpretation for the 21st century: 2002 Beck & Cable Fifteen guiding principles for interpreting nature and culture (2nd ed.) Personal interpretation: 2002 Brochu & Merriman Connecting your audience to heritage resources Environmental interpretation: 1992 Ham A practical guide for people with big ideas and small budgets Promoting persuasion in protected areas: 2007 Ham, Brown, A guide for managers. Curtis, Weiler, Developing strategic communication Hughes & Poll to influence visitor behavior Communication skills for 1999 Jacobson conservation professionals Interpretation of cultural 2003 Knudson, Cable and natural resources (2nd ed.) & Beck Interpreting for park visitors (9th ed.) 2005 Lewis Making visitors mindful: 1999 Moscardo Principles for creating quality sustainable visitor experiences through effective communication Module 101: Fulfilling the NPS mission: 2003 National Park The process of interpretation Service Module 103: Preparing and presenting 2003 National Park an effective interpretive talk Service National Park Service. Module 210: 2003 National Park Prepare and present an Service effective conducted activity National Park Service. Module 220: 2003 National Park Prepare and present an Service interpretive demonstration or other illustrated program National Park Service. Module 230: 2003 National Park Interpretive writing Service National Park Service. Module 311: 2003 National Park Interpretive media development Service Interpreting the environment 1976 Sharpe Interpreting our heritage (3rd ed.) 1957 Tilden Interpretive master planning: 1998 Veverka the essential planning guide for interpretive centers, parks, self-guided trails, historic sites, zoos, exhibits and programs (2nd ed.) Conducting meaningful interpretation: 2006 Widner Ward A field guide for success & Wilkinson Table 2. Interpretive best practices identified from key interpretive training texts Best Practices Operational Definition Theme development Interpretation delivery system (TD) had a clear theme(s). Link tangibles to The interpretation made a link intangibles to universals between tangible and intangible (LI) concepts and objects and demonstrated the relationship to universal concepts. Multisensory (MS) Interpretation delivery system intentionally designed to engage one or more senses. Actively engage The interpretation was designed audience (AE) to facilitate audience participation in the interpretive experience. Multiple activities (MU) The interpretive experience consisted of a variety of activities and opportunities for direct audience involvement. Multiple delivery styles Interpretation delivery system (MD) employed a mixture of first person interpretation, brochures, signs, exhibits etc. Relevance to audience Interpretive delivery system (RA) communicated relevance of subject to audience. Resource and Place Interpretive message focused on based messaging (PB) relationship between visitor and the site/resource Physical engagement Interpretive delivery system with the resource (PE) intentionally provides direct physical experiences and interactions with the site/resource to build relationship between the visitor and the site/resource Tailored to audience Interpretive delivery system was (TA) dev eloped specific ally for a pre - defined audience or user group (e.g. age appropriate). Cognitive-based Interpretation delivery system messaging (CM) provided accurate, fact-based information. as part of interpretation Affective messaging Interpretation delivery system (AM) provided affective messages. Cognitive/Affective Interpretation delivery system had messaging (CAM) a combination of cognitive and affective messages. Best Practices Specific to Operational Definition Behavior and/or Behavioral Intentions Demonstrates benefits of Interpretation delivery system action (BA) used messaging to present the potential results of desired actions. Social norms (SN) Interpretation delivery system presented messaging focused on social norms regarding a particular behavior or desired action. Ease of action (EA) Interpretation delivery system used messaging to present the ease of visitors adopting desired actions. Demonstrates action Interpretation delivery system (DA) provided examples of, or opportunities for desired action(s). Best Practices References Theme development (Beck & Cable, 2002; Brochu & (TD) Merriman, 2002; Ham, 1992; Knudson et al., 2003; Lewis, 2005; Moscardo, 1999b; Sharpe, 1976; Tilden, 1957; Veverka, 1998; Widner-Ward & Wilkinson, 2006) Link tangibles to (NPS Module 101; Beck & Cable, intangibles to universals 2002; Brochu & Merriman, 2002; (LI) Ham, 1992; Knudson, et al., 2003; Lewis, 2005; Moscardo, 1999; Tilden, 1957; Widner Ward & Wilkinson, 2006) Multisensory (MS) (Knudson et al., 2003; Lewis, 2005; Moscardo, 1999b; Tilden, 1957; Veverka, 1998) Actively engage (Knudson et al., 2003; Moscardo, audience (AE) 1999b; Sharpe, 1976; Tilden, 1957; Veverka, 1998) Multiple activities (MU) (Moscardo, 1999b; Widner-Ward & Wilkinson, 2006) Multiple delivery styles (Knudson et al., 2003; Moscardo, (MD) 1999b) Relevance to audience (Beck & Cable, 2002; Brochu & (RA) Merriman, 2002; Ham, 1992; Jacobson, 1999; Lewis, 2005; Moscardo, 1999b; Sharpe, 1976; Veverka, 1998; NPS Module 101; Tilden, 1957) Resource and Place (Beck & Cable, 2002; Knudson et based messaging (PB) al., 2003; Lewis, 2005; Moscardo, 1999b; Sharpe, 1976; NPS Module 101) Physical engagement (Beck & Cable, 2002; Knodson et with the resource (PE) al., 2003; Lewis, 2005; Moscardo, 1999b; Sharpe, 1976; NPS Module 101; Tilden, r957) Tailored to audience (Brochu & Merriman, 2002; Ham, (TA) 1992; Jacobson,) 1999 Moscardo, 1999b; Sharpe, 1976; NPS Module 101) Cognitive-based (Jacobson, 1999; Lewis, 2005; messaging (CM) Tilden, 1957; Widner-Ward & Wilkinson, 2006) Affective messaging (Jacobson, 1999; Lewis, 2005; (AM) Tilden, 1957; Widner-Ward & Wilkinson, 2006) Cognitive/Affective Jacobson, 1999; Lewis, 2005; messaging (CAM) Tilden, 1957; Widner-Ward & Wilkinson, 2006) Best Practices Specific to References Behavior and/or Behavioral Intentions Demonstrates benefits of (Ham et. al., 200C; Jacobson, 1999; action (BA) Knudson et al., 2003; Moscardo, 1999b) Social norms (SN) (Ham et. al., 2007; Jacobson, 1999; Knudson et al., 2003; Moscardo, 1999b) Ease of action (EA) (Ham et. ill., 2007; Jacobson, 1999; Knudson et al., 2003; Moscardo, 1999b; Tilden, 1957) Demonstrates action (Beck & Cable, 2002; Knudson et (DA) al., 2003; Moscardo, 1999b; Sharpe, 1976; Widner-Ward & Wilkinson, 2006) Table 3. Summary of interpretive program characteristics from reviewed articles Program Characteristic # of Articles (n=70) Percentage Audience Demographics General Public 59 84% Specific activity group 7 10% Children (4th--6th 4 6% grade) Audience Role Non-captive 51 73% Captive 19 23% Program Type First Person 40 57% Mixed Media 17 24% Signage 9 13% Print/brochure 3 4% Self-guided 1 1% Location United States 42 60% Australia 21 30% Ecuador 2 3% Antarctica 1% Belize 1% Canada 1% Korea 1% Panama 1% Note: Program characteristics were not mutually exclusive Table 4. Summary of study designs and methods from meta-analysis articles Design Number Percent Methodology Qualitative 8 11% Quantitative 53 76% Mixed 9 13% Sample Size 1--100 16 23% 101--200 14 20% 201-300 13 19% 301--400 9 13% 401--500 7 10% 501--1000 6 9% 1001-1500 1 1% 1501--3000 3 4% > 3000 1 1% Timing of post-program data collection n=72 * Immediate 56 78% 1 week--6 months 11 16% 6--12 months 3 4% 1--2 years 1 1% 2+ years 1 1% * Two studies used immediate and a longer-term follow up data collection technique; percentage calculated on n=72. Table 5. Summary of evaluated outcomes Number of Number of times evaluations outcome was Total w/positive Outcome evaluated * Percentage results * Percent^ [double dagger] Attitudes 25 23% 17 68% Awareness 10 9% 9 90% Behavior 13 12% 9 69% Intentions 15 13% 11 73% Knowledge 37 33% 33 89% Satisfaction 11 10% 10 91% Number of evaluations w/no Outcome impact * Percent^ Attitudes 8 32% Awareness 1 10% Behavior 4 31% Intentions 4 27% Knowledge 4 11% Satisfaction 1 9% *count exceeds 70 due to articles with more than 1 evaluated outcome [double dagger] Percentage calculated on n=111 ^ Percentage calculated on total number of times outcome was evaluated Table 6. Evaluated outcomes by articles surveyed Outcome Articles Attitudes Adelman et al, 2004; Beaumont, 2001; Bright et al, 1993; Christensen et al, 2007; Cole et al, 1997; DiMauro & Dietz, 2001; Hostetler et al, 2008; Hughes & Morrison-Saunders, 2002, 2005; Knapp & Barrie, 1998; Knapp & Poff, 2001; Liu & Kaplan, 2006; Lukas & Ross, 2005; Morgan et al, 1997; Morgan et al, 2003; Orams, 1997; Povey & Rios, 2002; Powell & Ham, 2008; Powell et al, 2008, 2009; Tubb, 2003; Ward & Roggenbuck, 2003; Wiles & Hall, 2005; Zeppel & Muloin, 2008 Awareness Adelman et al, 2000; Ballantyne & Hughes, 2006; Benton, 2009; Christensen et al, 2007; Frauman & Norman, 2003; Goldman et al, 2001; Morgan, 2009; Moscardo, 1999; Silverman & Masberg, 2001; Stewart et al, 1998 Behavior Adelman et al, 2000; Beaumont, 2001; Gramann, 2000; Hostetler et al, 2008; Knapp & Barrie, 1998; Orams, 1997; Powell & Ham, 2008; Randall & Rollins, 2009; Wallace & Gaudry, 2002; Ward & Roggenbuck, 2000, 2003; Winter et al, 1998; Winter, 2006 Intentions Ballantyne & Hughes, 2006; Hockett & Hall, 2007; Hwang et al, 2000; Lackey & Ham, 2003; Morgan et al, 2003; Oliver, 1985; Orams, 1997; Powell & Ham, 2008; Powell et al, 2008, 2009; Smith et al, 2008; Swanagan, 2000; Tubb, 2003; Weiler & Smith, 2009; Winter et al, 2000 Knowledge Adelman et al, 2000; Armstrong & Weiler, 2002; Beaumont, 2001; Bright et al, 1993; Brody et al, 2002; Carr, 2004; Cole et al, 1997; Engels & Jacobson, 2007; Falk & Adelman, 2003; Falk & Storksdieck, 2005; Hostetler, et al 2008; Knapp & Barrie, 1998; Knapp & Benton, 2005; Knapp & Yang, 2002 Knapp, 2006; Knopf, 1981; Liu & Kaplan, 2006; Lukas & Ross, 2005; Madin & Fenton, 2004; Morgan et al, 1997; Morgan et al, 2003; Orams, 1997; Porter & Howard, 2002; Powell & Ham, 2008; Powell et al, 2009; Ryan & Dewar, 1995; Tarlton & Ward, 2006; Tubb, 2003; Ward & Roggenbuck, 2003; Weiler & Smith, 2009;Wiles & Hall, 2005; Zeppel & Muloin, 2008 Satisfaction Anderson et al, 2008; Ballantyne et al, 1998; Beckmann, 1999; Ham & Weiler, 2002, 2007; Hughes & Morrison-Saunders, 2002; Morgan & Dong, 2008; Orams, 1997; Powell & Ham, 2008; Randall & Rollins, 2009; Weiler, 1999 Table 7. Summary of best practices found in articles Total number of times Program Characteristic program characteristic Percent * was present * [double dagger] Theme development (TD) 34 49% Link tangibles to intangibles (LI) 6 9% Multisensory (MS) 33 47% Actively engage audience (AE) 36 51% Multiple activities (MU) 13 19% Multiple delivery styles (MD) 33 8% Relevance to audience (RA) 13 19% Resource & place based (PB) 37 53% Physically engage resource (PE) 28 40% Tailored to audience (TA) 11 16% Cognitive--based messaging (CM) 15 21% Affective persuasive messaging (AM) 4 6% Cog./Aff. Messaging (CAM) 34 49% Benefits of action (BA) 24 34% Social norms (SN) 21 30% Ease of action (EA) 21 30% Demonstrates action (DA) 3 4% *count exceeds 70 due to articles assessing more than one best practice [double dagger]Percentage calculated on n=70 Table 8. Frequencies and percentages of best practices associated with evaluated Outcomes and percent associated with positive influence Best Practices Satisfaction Awareness Knowledge Theme development (TD) 8/9 (89%) 4/5 (80%) 11/13 (85%) Link tangibles to 1/1 (100%) 4/4 (100%) 0 intangibles (LI) Multisensory (MS) 4/5 (80%) 7/9 (77%) 17/18 (95%) Actively engage audience 9/9 (100%) 4/5 (80%) 19/21 (90%) (AE) Multiple activities (MU) 1/1 (100%) 4/4 (100%) 4/6 (66%) Multiple delivery styles 4/5 (80%) 5/6 (83%) 12/14 (86%) (MD) Relevance to audience 2/2 (100%) 2/2 (100%) 7/8 (88%) (RA) Resource & place based 5/5 (100%) 7/8 (88%) 13/16 (81%) (PB) Physically engage 4/4 (100%) 2/3 (66%) 12/14 (86%) resource (PE) Tailored to audience (TA) 3/3 (100%) 2/2 (100%) 2/2 (100%) Cognitive -based 3/3 (100%) 1/1 (100%) 10/13 (77%) messaging (CM) Affective persuasive 1/1 (100%) 1/1(100%) 2/2 (100%) messaging (AM) Cog./Aff. Messaging 1/2 (50%) 5/7 (71%) 19/21 (90%) (CAM) Benefits of action (BA) 1/2 (50%) 3/3 (100%) 6/7 (86%) Social norms (SN) 1/2 (50%) 3/3 (100%) 5/6 (83%) Ease of action (EAM) 1/2 (50%) 3/3 (100%) 5/6 (83%) Demonstrates action 1/1 (100%) 0 2/2 (100%) (DA) Total # and % of pairings 50/57 (88%) 57/66 (86%) 146/169 (86%) with positive influence Best Practices Attitudes Intentions Behaviors Theme development (TD) 3/5 (60%) 3/5 (60%) 0 Link tangibles to 0/1 (0%) 0 0 intangibles (LI) Multisensory (MS) 2/4 (50%) 1/1 (100%) 0 Actively engage audience 2/4 (50%) 1/1 (100%) 1/1 (100%) (AE) Multiple activities (MU) 1/2 (50%) 1/2 (50%) 0 Multiple delivery styles 2/3 (66%) 3/4 (75%) 1/1 (100%) (MD) Relevance to audience 1/2 (50%) 1/1 (100%) 0/1 (0%) (RA) Resource & place based 2/3 (66%) 4/4 (100%) 1/2 (50%) (PB) Physically engage 2/4 (50%) 0 0 resource (PE) Tailored to audience (TA) 2/3 (66%) 1/1 (100%) 0 Cognitive -based 0 0 0 messaging (CM) Affective persuasive 1/1(100%) 0 0 messaging (AM) Cog./Aff. Messaging 1/2 (50%) 6/6 (100%) 2/3 (66%) (CAM) Benefits of action (BA) 2/3 (66%) 6/7 (85%) 3/4 (75%) Social norms (SN) 0/1 (0%) 6/6 (100%) 3/4 (75%) Ease of action (EAM) 1/2 (50%) 6/6 (100%) 1/2 (50%) Demonstrates action 0 0 0 (DA) Total # and % of pairings 22/40 (55%) 39/44 (89%) 12/18 (67%) with positive influence Best Practices Positive Influence Theme development (TD) 29/35 (83%) Link tangibles to 5/6 (83%) intangibles (LI) Multisensory (MS) 31/37 (84%) Actively engage audience 36/41 (88%) (AE) Multiple activities (MU) 10/13 (77%) Multiple delivery styles 28/33 (85%) (MD) Relevance to audience 13/16 (81%) (RA) Resource & place based 33/39 (85%) (PB) Physically engage 23/28 (82%) resource (PE) Tailored to audience (TA) 10/11 (91%) Cognitive -based 14/17 (82%) messaging (CM) Affective persuasive 5/5 (100%) messaging (AM) Cog./Aff. Messaging 35/42 (83%) (CAM) Benefits of action (BA) 21/25 (84%) Social norms (SN) 18/22 (82%) Ease of action (EAM) 17/21 (81%) Demonstrates action 3/3 (100%) (DA) Total # and % of pairings 331/394 with positive influence (84%)