chapter 8 The Role of Interpretation Glen T. Hvenegaard, John Shultis, and James R. Butler I’ll interpret the rocks, learn the language of flood, storm and the avalanche. I’ll acquaint myself with the glaciers and wild gardens, and get as near the heart of the world as I can. John Muir, 1871 (cited in Mackintosh, 2000: 1) INTRODUCTION Interpretation is a communication process designed to reveal meanings and relationships of cultural and natural heritage to the public, through first-hand involvement with an object, artifact, landscape, or site (Interpretation Canada, 2008). Interpretation has been fundamental to the original concept of parks and protected areas, at first led by energetic volunteers, and later supported by administrators and implemented with professionally trained staff. Today, interpretation, in its many forms—and the related communication techniques of environmental education and tour guiding—is employed in the vast majority of Western protected areas systems. The provision of interpretation provides important benefits, not only to park visitors, but to the natural environment, park agencies, and society in general. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the definitions, principles, history, theoretical foundations, effectiveness, and practice of interpretation, with a focus on Canadian protected areas at the federal level, as municipal, provincial, and territorial interpretation legislation, policy, and practices vary considerably throughout Canada. DEFINITION AND PURPOSE OF INTERPRETATION IN PROTECTED AREAS Tilden (1977: 8) defined interpretation as ‘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’. Interpretation differs from information in two fundamental ways. First, interpretation depends on information, but seeks to reveal meanings based on that information, so that ‘visitors increase knowledge and deepen understanding.’ Second, the chief aim of inter- hvenegaard, shultis & butler: the role of interpretation | 203 FIGURE 8.1 Visitor scanning for wildlife, Firth River, Vuntut National Park. ‘Interpretation should fill visitors with a greater sense of wonder and curiosity.’ Photo: P. Dearden. pretation is not instruction, but provocation (ibid.). Such provocation works to develop appreciation, respect, and a sense of responsibility to those protected places being interpreted (Canadian Environmental Advisory Council, 1991; Parks Canada, 1998a). Thus, interpretation is not mere transfer of information to others. Effective interpretation fills visitors with a greater sense of wonder and curiosity. It leaves the visitor both better informed and with a desire to know more. Finally, interpretation provides challenges or opportunities to act on this new sense of respect, benefiting the ecological integrity of national parks and the surrounding environments. A number of similar definitions exist (e.g., Sharpe, 1982; Knudson et al., 2003), but typically embrace the following attributes of interpretive services: 1. They are on-site, emphasizing first-hand experience with the natural environment (e.g., they introduce, then encourage visitors to spend time outdoors for direct interactions with the park’s features, as distinct from a museum, which functions as the destination itself). 2. They provide an informal form of education (i.e., interpretation does not employ a classroom-based approach). 3. They deal with a voluntary, non-captive audience: visitors participate by free choice during their leisure time. 4. They satisfy visitors’ normal expectation of gratification (i.e., visitors want to be rewarded or to have a need or want satisfied). 204 | part iii social science theory and application 5. They are inspirational and motivational in nature; they do not merely present factual information. 6. Their goals are expansions of knowledge, shifts in attitude, and alterations in behaviour of visitors; visitors should increase their understanding of, and their appreciation and respect for, the park environment. 7. They create experiences based on the constructed values of natural and cultural features; individuals and societies continuously generate and reassess the meaning of various resources, including protected areas. Interpretation facilitates the understanding, appreciation, and protection of the park’s intrinsic and constructed values. The purpose of park interpretation is shaped by park legislation and policy as well as by societal attitudes and values and visitor behaviour. Canadian legislation notes that national parks are created for the ‘benefit, education and enjoyment’ of the people of Canada (Canada, 1990). Existing national parks policy further outlines the goals, methods, content, and target audiences of interpretation. Specifically, the national parks are to provide programs to encourage and assist Canadians in ‘understanding, appreciating, enjoying and protecting their national parks’ (Parks Canada, 1994: 37). Interpretation provides essential facts about an area and its facilities, and helps the visitor understand, appreciate, and enjoy the park’s natural and cultural features. By doing so, interpretation helps to minimize uncertainty and to maximize opportunity for visitors. A well-rounded interpretation program serves to awaken public awareness of park purposes and policies and strives to develop a stronger concern for preservation. The degree to which a visitor enjoys and values his or her experience in a park depends largely on the individual’s perception of that area’s environment. For this reason, interpretive approaches should be designed to enhance the visitor’s perception of these landscapes and ultimately to be a positive influence on the interactions between visitors and the ecosystem. Interpretation, Environmental Education, and Tour Guiding Interpretation, environmental education, and tour guiding can all occur in protected areas, and all are important in park operations. Traditionally, interpreters were Parks Canada staff, while environmental educators and tour guides were hired by other government agencies, commercial operators, and NGOs. As messages created by external groups are difficult to control by Parks Canada (or other park agencies), greater efforts at partnering with these external groups have been attempted, to ensure that the messages provided match the messages desired by park agencies. In addition, Parks Canada has recently moved towards increasing its environmental education capacity in an attempt to better engage with Canadians outside park boundaries (Parks Canada Agency, 2006a). Additional information on the move to off-site education and interpretation by Parks Canada will be provided later in this chapter. While an extended discussion of the theoretical and professional links between interpretation, environmental education, and tour guiding is beyond the scope of this chapter, it is important to note the common objectives that these educational endeavours sometimes share. Environmental education programs are developed principally for pri- hvenegaard, shultis & butler: the role of interpretation | 205 FIGURE 8.2 An interpreter interacts with his audience on Bonaventure Island, Quebec. Photo: G. Hvenegaard. mary and secondary school students: personal services include teacher training and events led by volunteers and park staff, while non-personal services include pre- and post-trip resource kits, brochures on self-guided field studies, exhibits developed specifically for children, and CD programs and videos to be used in the classroom before field trips. In its broadest perspective, environmental education is aimed at producing people who are knowledgeable about the whole environment and its associated problems, aware of how to help solve these problems, skilled at helping others do the same, and motivated to work towards their solution (Grant and Littlejohn, 2004). Tour guiding normally involves private companies engaged in commercial operations. Most often used in pre-booked packages, tour companies hire trained guides to lead these tours, and in doing so provide a conduit between each site visited on the tour and the tourists. Tour guides based in or nearby protected areas also can be hired locally by both guided and independent recreationists and by tourists for day trips and overnight excursions in protected areas. The tour guides schedule and lead these trips, and go far beyond merely providing information to their clients: they mediate between differing cultures, act as mentors to clients, develop narratives of place and time, and choose from a breadth of information to inform clients (Cohen, 1985; Dahles, 2002; Reisinger and Steiner, 2006). Thus, in addition to interpretation, these two related sources of communication have important roles to play in influencing visitor behaviour and individual and societal attitudes towards protected areas. 206 | part iii social science theory and application FIGURE 8.3 Living interpretation at one of Canada’s most famous sites, the fortress of Louisbourg, Nova Scotia. Photo: G. Hvenegaard. hvenegaard, shultis & butler: the role of interpretation | 207 The Links between Interpretation and Ecotourism There are implicit links between interpretation and ecotourism; the latter is often touted as the best means to influence park use by tourists. While the definition of ecotourism is still hotly debated, most agree that three concepts are fundamental to ecotourism: (1) a focus on nature-based activities; (2) an educational component that informs and inspires tourists; and (3) a conservation ethic, so that the visitors’ activities do not harm the cultural and ecological conditions of the area (Weaver, 2002; Diamantis, 2004). Ecotourists’ desire to learn about the natural world emphasizes the need for effective interpretation by ecotourism operators. Ecotourism usually refers to non-consumptive activities, such as birding, whale watching, nature photography, and botanical study. As such, ecotourism is reliant on natural features in relatively undisturbed sites, most often in parks and protected areas (Hvenegaard, 1994; Diamantis, 2004). Interpretation, whether delivered by park staff (usually in the public sector) or tour guides (normally in the private sector), is viewed as the best means of maximizing the positive and minimizing the negative impacts of park visitors (see Bramwell and Lane, 1993). The role of the tour guide in providing interpretation and education to ecotourists is well documented (Ballantyne and Hughes, 2001; Reisinger and Steiner, 2006). For example, Cohen (1985) suggests four dimensions of tour guiding exist: instrumental (organization and management of tours), interactional (facilitating encounters with people and places), social interaction (group development and cohesion), and communicative (selecting and disseminating information to the group). As well as the obvious link to the latter dimension, the interactional dimension can include minimizing impacts on people and place. Weiler and Davis (1993) also suggest that tour guides must take responsibility for managing the group’s environmental footprint and—when necessary—changing the environmental attitudes and behaviours of tourists (see also Christie and Mason, 2003). Of course, many researchers are unconvinced of the appropriateness of ecotourism and question whether ecotourism is different from ‘normal’ tourism. For example, Zell (1992: 31) states that ‘Tourism creates more tourism, the location becomes well known and thus desirable creating demand, more supply and ultimately destruction of the original reason for going there.’ On the other hand, ecotourism has the potential to facilitate change in visitors’ knowledge and beliefs (Orams, 1996), but, as Price (2003) suggests, significant obstacles need to be overcome. A few examples illustrate interpretation’s various roles. First, interpretation can help to reduce environmental impacts by highlighting appropriate activities in sensitive areas. Interpreters and tour guides often describe species and habitats that are of concern, due to disturbance or overuse. Second, interpretation can be used to alleviate social impacts by involving local communities and redirecting traffic. For example, in response to high levels of use at Point Pelee National Park, ‘Operation Spreadout’ seeks to inform visitors of other nearby attractions. Third, by providing additional opportunities for visitors, interpretation can improve local economic impacts by increasing the number of days that visitors stay in an area. As well, interpretation can emphasize opportunities to contribute to conservation. Ecotourists tend to donate more money to conservation than general tourists, but they need additional interpretation to encourage them to do so (Hvenegaard 208 | part iii social science theory and application and Dearden, 1998). Finally, interpretation responds to the ecotourists’ need for awareness and understanding of a park’s natural features. Visitors to Grasslands National Park in southern Saskatchewan, for example, are primarily motivated to learn more about the environment (Saleh and Karwacki, 1996). As Ham and Weiler (2002) suggest, interpretation has the potential to promote sustainability, in the context of satisfying visitors, altering behaviour, and promoting a conservation ethic (see also Orams, 1996). ORIGINS AND HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION IN PROTECTED AREAS Soon after the creation of federal national park systems in Canada (1911) and the United States (1916), the fundamental role of interpretation in national parks was established. In his initial annual report, the US Park Service’s new director, Stephen T. Mather, emphasized that ‘one of the chief functions of the national parks and monuments is to serve educational purposes’ (cited in Carlsbad Caverns National Park, 2004: 1). Mather was first introduced to interpretation in private resorts in the Lake Tahoe area. After a visit to Yosemite, in 1919, Mather attended a popular program provided by university professors Miller and Bryant at the Fallen Leaf Lodge (Weaver, 1982). This new approach to education was supported by a Sacramento patron who had enthused about interpretive guides he had encountered in Europe, and by the California Nature Study League and the State Fish and Game Commission. Upon observing the success of this program, Mather recognized that such programs could increase public support for national parks, and could therefore increase government support and funding for park creation and park management. The following summer, the two professors became the first park naturalists employed in the American park system. Private interpretive programs had already begun within the national parks in a more informal manner, and Mather’s 1919 annual report specifically mentioned eight instances of campfire education already underway that summer (Shankland, 1970). Thus began a tradition that would, in spite of wavering commitments and administrative cutbacks, continue within most national park systems in the developed world to the present time (see Box 8.1). The abolition of interpretation in British Columbia’s provincial parks in 2001 provides a worst-case scenario of budget cuts and the increasing commercialization of protected areas. As of early 2008, British Columbia has yet to directly reinstate interpretation in its provincial parks, although limited funding through the Conservation Corps includes some interpretation in provincial parks in the summer season. Shifts in Emphasis in Park Interpretation Since the 1920s, interpretation in parks has become considerably more sophisticated, in terms of technological applications, systems planning, and interagency co-ordination. Important shifts in interpretive focus over this period may be divided into four phases, each of which reflects key roles within park management. In Phase One, beginning with the earliest interpretive programs, park interpretation was concerned with acquainting visitors with features in the park, often those that were most dramatic, hvenegaard, shultis & butler: the role of interpretation | 209 BOX 8.1 History of Park Interpretation in North America 1784 First natural history museum to utilize interpretive techniques opens in Philadelphia, with Charles Wilson Peale exhibiting wildlife collections from the American West. 1869 First park interpretive book, The Yosemite Guidebook, is published by California State Geologist J.D. Whitney. 1870s John Muir leads groups on interpretive hikes into Yosemite backcountry. Muir later becomes an influential spokesperson for wilderness preservation. 1887 Scottish caretaker and guide, David Galletly, conducts visitors through the lower Hot Spring cave, Banff. These are the first formal interpretive walks conducted by an interpreter in a Canadian national park. 1889 Enos Mills, the founder of nature guiding, formalizes and teaches principles of nature guiding in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. He later wrote Adventures of a Nature Guide and Essays in Interpretation. 1895 First park interpretive museum, and first museum in any national park, is established at Banff. 1904 First park interpretive trail is established at Yosemite; Lieutenant Pipes of the Army Medical Corps establishes a trail with labelled trees and other plants. 1905 C.H. Deutschman, who discovered Nakimu Caves in Glacier National Park, British Columbia, begins to conduct visitors through the cave system. 1911 Evening campfire programs and tours of park features are well established in several Canadian and US national parks, but all are conducted by concessions. 1914 First Canadian national park interpretive publications appear in Banff. 1915 Esther Burnell Estes becomes first licensed woman interpreter in the US. 1918 US establishes its first park museum in Mesa Verde, Colorado, with exhibits and lectures given; the next museum opens in 1921, in Yosemite. 1919 Nature guiding becomes popular in Rocky Mountain resorts in US. Steven Mather, Director of US Parks Service, has the idea of institutionalizing interpretation in the US national parks system. 1920 First US Park Service interpretive programs begin with government-employed interpreters in Yosemite and Yellowstone. 1929 First seasonal interpretive programs begin in the Rocky Mountain national parks of Canada, with the appointment of J. Hamilton Laing. 1931 Grey Owl (Archie Belaney) employed as interpreter by Parks Canada at Riding Mountain, Manitoba; later transferred to Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. 1944 Early interpretive events conducted in Banff; wildlife warden, Hubert Green, feeds aspen cuttings to beavers of Vermilion Lakes before 25–30 tourists nightly while discussing beaver life history. 1954 Interpretive programs begin in provincial parks of Ontario. 1958 First co-ordinated interpretive service established in Ottawa for Canada’s national park system. 1964 First permanent naturalists located in Canadian Rocky Mountain national parks. 210 | part iii social science theory and application 1969 First Canadian Wildlife Service interpretation centre opens at Wye Marsh, near Midland, Ontario. 1985 A national Canadian assembly on national parks and protected areas, formed to mark the centennial of Canada’s national parks, encourages the development of more interpretive programs. 1988 & 1994 Governmental downsizing results in drastic budget cuts for interpretive staff and services in Canada’s national parks. 1990s Scattered attempts to ‘privatize’ interpretive services, particularly in provincial parks. 1991 The Canadian Environmental Advisory Council (1991) report advises Parks Canada to dedicate more resources to support interpretation and education programs. 1998 In response to budget cuts and perceived decreasing quality and quantity of interpretation in national parks, Parks Canada creates the Action Plan for the Renewal of Heritage Presentations.‘Outreach’ communication is also touted for urban and youth audiences. 2000 Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada’s National Parks recommends that interpretation have ecological integrity as its core purpose and that interpretive funding in national parks be doubled. 2001 ‘Engaging Canadians’, a new approach for external communications for Parks Canada, is created. It incorporates three goals: to raise awareness of protected areas by Canadians; to foster understanding and enjoyment of parks and thus influence their attitudes towards parks; and to strengthen emotional connections to Canadian heritage places by creating more opportunities for residents to become directly involved in parks. 2001 BC Parks is dismantled as a separate provincial ministry in British Columbia, and interpretation in BC’s provincial parks is cut. 2005 The 2005 session of the Minister’s Round Table on Parks Canada focuses on facilitating memorable visitor experiences, including an increased emphasis on reaching new Canadians, youth, ethnic minorities, and urban residents in off-site outreach communications (e.g., environmental education). Parks Canada responds in part by creating an External Relations and Visitor Experience Directorate to address these new priorities. majestic, and exceptional. The emphasis was on providing explanations for these phenomena, often as examples of the wonders of God’s creation. This reflected the focus of creating parks that included the most spectacular and monumental natural features in each nation in order to generate national pride in these relatively young countries (Shultis, 1995; Runte, 1997). In Phase Two, during an era of higher environmental awareness, beginning in the early 1960s, interpretation began to stress ecological interrelationships and the broader landscape, even when these were less dramatic than high-profile features like hot springs or waterfalls. Management issues such as crowding and environmental impacts of out- hvenegaard, shultis & butler: the role of interpretation | 211 door recreation also received greater attention (Hendee and Dawson, 2002). Communication, however, was focused only on natural and cultural features existing within the park boundary. In Phase Three, interpretation began to foster a broader ecological consciousness among park visitors and the Western public at large. This involved a shift from an internal focus to a greater external awareness of the ecosystems surrounding the park. This phase was influenced greatly by the photograph of Earth from outer space in 1969 and paralleled the heightened interest in ecology in the 1970s. During this period, environmental education emerged as an important and critical interdisciplinary subject integrated into school curricula systems throughout North America (Rasmussen, 2000). This new ‘ecological mission’ of park interpretation, with its shift of emphasis from the park in isolation to ecological perspectives beyond the limits of the park boundary, paralleled the development of several new policy and management perspectives occurring in national parks as part of a redefinition of their role in society as critical and important ecological landscapes. The new ecological interpretation affirmed the perspective that national parks, which had come to be revered as benchmarks of the natural environment (to be compared and contrasted to landscapes where renewable resource activities such as logging are undertaken), could not survive independent of the surrounding landscapes. A federal vehicle was needed to reach the public in a campaign to support a national environmental strategy, and national park visitors were recognized as a more highly educated segment of the population, with greater receptivity to environmental education and a disproportionately higher influence on decision-making. Relatively healthy national park environments could assist in building a new philosophy and ethical system among visitors, using interpretation as a key communication tool. Such a reorientation is critical to the long-term protection of the ecological integrity of national parks and the environment in general. This federal responsibility was expressed by Parks Canada (1997: 1): ‘In a world of rapid change, our parks, historic sites, and marine conservation areas are seen as models of environmental stewardship and as an important legacy to be preserved for future generations. They represent one of the most positive, tangible and enduring demonstrations of the federal government’s commitment to the environment.’ A Phase Four, beginning at the turn of the twenty-first century, seems to be developing. While the focus on ecological issues inside and outside of park boundaries from Phase Three is still in evidence, several park agencies around the world are beginning to rethink their traditional reliance on on-site interpretation in protected areas. For example, both the National Parks Service in the United States and the Parks Canada Agency have expressed concern with focusing on park visitors only, especially when many park systems are experiencing stagnating or declining visitation. Both agencies have identified a need to reach out to non-visitors, particularly the so-called ‘x-box generation’ (i.e., youth), ‘new’ citizens (e.g., recent immigrants), ethnic minorities, and urban residents (National Park Service, 2003; Parks Canada Agency, 2006b). Particular concern towards the low interest in and use of protected areas by contemporary youth has recently been demonstrated (e.g., Pergrams and Zaradic, 2006), with the suggestion that today’s children have ‘nature deficit disorder’ from their focus on computer-based leisure activities, suburban sprawl, ever busier schedules for children, and an increased 212 | part iii social science theory and application focus on academic performance (Louv, 2005). Educational programs are now defined much more broadly, and include not only interpretation, but environmental education and, to a lesser extent, tour guiding; the shift from on-site to off-site locations for heritage communications is a significant shift. On-site interpretation will continue, but an increased emphasis will be placed on off-site communications strategies. In much the same way as Parks Canada reconfigured its organizational structure to emphasize the primary management directive of ecological integrity in the 1990s, it has made similar (though less extensive) changes to emphasize this new communication strategy. Based on the ‘Engaging Canadians’ strategy created in 2001 and feedback from the Minister’s Round Table on Parks Canada in 2005 (Parks Canada Agency, Performance, Audit and Review Group, 2005; Parks Canada Agency, 2006b), an External Relations and Visitor Experience Directorate has been created at the head office to allow the agency to strengthen its educational efforts: Engaging Canadians in heritage conservation and celebration is key to creating awareness of the necessity to preserve diverse cultural and natural resources. As part of this effort to reach out to Canadians, Parks Canada is moving ahead with plans to reach urban audiences, new Canadians and Canadian youth. Parks Canada is exploring the addition of visitor facilities in urban areas to act as multimedia windows into Canada’s special natural and cultural places. School programs and Parks Canada curriculum material will be strengthened and Web-based learning materials will be broadened. (Parks Canada Agency, 2006b: 15) The increased significance of heritage communications in Parks Canada is also reflected in the list of program activities for Parks Canada: after the first two objectives of ‘establishing heritage places’ and ‘conserving heritage resources’, the third and fourth programs are ‘promoting public appreciation and understanding’ and ‘enhancing visitor experiences’. These four program activities are identified as the ‘core programs’ of the agency (Parks Canada Agency, 2006b: 17), and are used by Parks Canada to base its reporting to Parliament. Approximately $70 million (of a total budget of approximately $500 million) has been targeted for promoting public appreciation and understanding from 2006 to 2011. According to Parks Canada (ibid., 58–9), these public information and education programs ‘must go beyond the mere communication of information to become rich learning experiences that resonate with Canadians to empower them to take action as stewards and to encourage them to visit and personally experience Canada’s special heritage places’; to make such a connection, they ‘must go beyond the visitors to its parks and sites, and reach out to Canadians—in their homes, their schools, their communities and their place of work’. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF INTERPRETATION Early professional interpreters based their planning and evaluation of interpretation— primarily personal forms of interpretation—largely on intuition and feedback from peers. As academic researchers began to study interpretation, theories from a variety of hvenegaard, shultis & butler: the role of interpretation | 213 FIGURE 8.4 about a park. Self-guiding trail booklets are one way to inform a large number of visitors . Photo: G. Hvenegaard disciplines were used in an attempt to provide a conceptual framework for interpretation beyond that of Tilden’s principles (Ballantyne and Uzzel, 1999) and to ensure that interpretive research efforts would be considered an area of academic research equal to other, more established research areas in academia. As interpretive research is still in its infancy, a host of theoretical approaches may be drawn on to explain the impact of interpretation; in addition, commonalities exist between theoretical approaches to interpretation, environmental education, and tour guiding. But as Larson (2004: 70) notes, ‘interpretation is disadvantaged by not having a coherent professional language based on shared theory and understanding.’ Without a foundational conceptual and theoretical base, it is difficult for interpreters and researchers to generate the necessary support from potential funders, politicians, administrators, and managers. For the purposes of this section, the primary theories and epistemological stances normally used only in interpretation research will be reviewed, taken largely from the disciplines of social psychology and education. The theories used most frequently to explain and predict the potential impact of interpretation are taken from social psychology. The theories of reasoned action and planned behaviour suggest that behaviour is best explained and predicted through individuals’ intentions to perform a specific behaviour, which are linked with people’s behavioural beliefs (attitudes about the consequences of the behaviour), normative beliefs (perceived social support for the behaviour and their motivation to comply), 214 | part iii social science theory and application FIGURE 8.5 A critical aspect of interpretation is to orient the message and delivery to the audience. Here we see signs designed to appeal to a younger audience. Photo: G. Hvenegaard. hvenegaard, shultis & butler: the role of interpretation | 215 Behavioural Beliefs Attitude Towards the Behaviour Normative Beliefs Subjective Norm Control Beliefs Preceived Behavioural Control FIGURE 8.6 Intention Behaviour Actual Behavioural Control The theory of planned behaviour (from Ajzen, 2006). and control beliefs (perceived ability and difficulty of undertaking the behaviour (Figure 8.6; Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein and Manfredo, 1992). Thus, in order to change behaviour, one or more of the above variables must be altered. For example, changing a behavioural belief through an interpretive program on the impact of feeding animals might note that habituation and death of the animal could result from such behaviour, leading individuals to ‘rethink’ their behavioural or normative beliefs for this behaviour (see Box 8.2 for another example). Theories from persuasion research are also frequently used in interpretation research (Knudson et al., 2003; Marion and Reid, 2007). Two routes to persuasive communication have been identified in the elaboration likelihood model (Petty et al., 1992). Information provided in protected areas (e.g., ‘Feeding the animals is illegal’) attempts to target the peripheral route to persuasion, where an individual’s behaviour is directed more by the source of the message than by the cognitive change from the message itself. Tour guides’ modelling of appropriate behaviour is another example of the peripheral route to persuasion. Interpretation and environmental education normally attempt to access the central route to persuasion, which is characterized by individuals attending to the message and then internalizing the message through active cognition. The information in the message is compared with existing beliefs, attitudes, and values, and—if successful—new beliefs, attitudes, values, or behaviours are created. For example, if visitors are informed that feeding wildlife will lead to habituation, illness, and death for a number of animals, they will process this information, relate it to their existing beliefs, attitudes, and values, and may adjust their behaviour accordingly. Other positivistic approaches to assessing interpretation include decision-making, mindfulness, and moral development. Decision-making theory examines how individuals behave, suggesting it is a result of assessing consequences and benefits of various 216 | part iii social science theory and application BOX 8.2 Application of the Theory of Reasoned Action Bright et al. (1993) used the theory of reasoned action to explore public acceptance of the US National Park Service’s controlled burn policy. Based on an initial sample of visitors to Yellowstone National Park, behavioural intentions (to support the policy) were strongly correlated with attitudes and subjective norms. Further, there was a correlation between attitudes and normative beliefs. Several key outcomes of a controlled burn policy differentiated visitors who did or did not support the policy. Positive attitudes were affected by the outcomes of improving conditions for wildlife and allowing natural events to occur. Negative attitudes were influenced by effects on private property, destroying scenery, and allowing fires to get out of control. Based on these key outcomes, researchers prepared belief-targeted messages to change support for the controlled burn policy. Researchers conducted three major tests about the theory of reasoned action. First, the change in attitudes and subjective norms about the policy were good predictors about support for the policy, although attitudes were slightly better predictors. Second, the change in beliefs and outcomes was positively correlated with the change in attitude towards the burn policy (but not for those who did not originally support the policy). Third, those beliefs targeted in the messages were more strongly endorsed over time, but again, not for those who did not originally support the policy. The researchers conclude that, while the theory can be used as a tool to understand relationships among belief change, attitude change, and behavioural intentions, the effectiveness of belief-targeted messages in changing beliefs is less clear and requires further study. courses of action (Marion and Reid, 2007). In this scenario, visitors would assess the pros and cons of feeding wildlife and of not feeding wildlife. Moscardo (1999) suggests that visitors must be made mindful through having control of behaviour, receiving personally relevant interpretation, and having a variety of novel interpretive options available. Moral development theory suggests that people progress through six stages in three levels of moral development, ranging from pre-conventional (where fear of punishment largely dictates behaviour) to conventional (where the opinions of others largely determine behaviour) to post-conventional (consideration for fairness, justice, and equality largely influence behaviour) (Kohlberg, 1976). Moral development theory suggests that, depending on the audience and stage of moral development (e.g., children, students, seniors), different interpretive messages may be tailored to each moral development stage. However, much like the lack of clear, predictable links between beliefs, attitudes, intensions, and behaviour in the context of research using the theories of reasoned action and planned behaviour, questions have been raised as to the link between decision-making, moral reasoning, and behaviour (Marnburg, 2001). Humans are often stubborn, illogical, and irrational, but each of the theories noted above uses a ‘rational actor model’, where human decision-making and behaviour is conceived as completely hvenegaard, shultis & butler: the role of interpretation | 217 rational and thus predictable. However, the rational actor model has come under increasing criticism for ignoring many instances where behaviour does not follow the precepts of ‘rational actors’; the foundational assumptions of this model have also been questioned (e.g., Green and Shapiro, 1996; Pellikaan and van der Veen, 2002; Mueller, 2004). The assumption that people have equal access to information, review all alternatives impartially, and act according to rational cognitive processes may not always be true; people behave in certain ways for many different reasons, not all of them rational. Notwithstanding the important contributions quantitative studies have made in this field, a growing number of researchers have highlighted the potential utility of incorporating qualitative research to study interpretation. Social scientists in many disciplines have turned to so-called ‘interpretive’ approaches to science (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005). The traditional positivist, reductionist approaches to studying behavioural issues focus on quantifying human behaviour and experience to enable identification of constituent variables and use them to predict behaviour of wider populations. The interpretive perspective uses reflexive, qualitative approaches in research to create a deeper understanding of experiential dimensions of human behaviour and acknowledge the social context of behaviour. Normally, a relativist (as opposed to realist) epistemological stance is adopted (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005). For example, if realists consider resources to have innate properties, the role of interpreters would be to highlight these properties to visitors. On the other hand, relativists suggest that meanings are socially constructed by humans, and change through time and space and across cultures. Thus, if there is no one ‘truth’ to interpret, the interpreters’ job is to ‘deconstruct’ the meanings attached to natural and cultural features and thus bring to light their hidden assumptions and contexts. The use of postmodernism and social constructivism to frame communication between interpreters/visitors and environmental educators/non-visitors acknowledges the two-way process of communication and the constructed nature of reality for both ‘sender’ and ‘receiver’. Traditional reductionist approaches typically view communication as a one-way process and ignore situational contexts in the making of meaning. Constructivist approaches ‘extend the focus from the exhibition or experience itself to include the visitor who interprets, understands, and imposes meaning on the [interpretation], often within a social context’ (Ballantyne, 1998: 84). Meaning is not simply contained within the protected area or specific feature being interpreted; meaning is constantly and actively being shaped and reshaped by both senders and receivers, based on individual and societal contexts (Archer and Wearing, 2003; Reisinger and Steiner, 2006). For example, many agencies around the world have recently re-evaluated interpretive themes and language regarding the history and role of Aboriginal peoples in areas later designated as protected areas. Knapp and colleagues (e.g., Knapp and Yang, 2002; Knapp and Benton, 2004) have taken the lead in using qualitative approaches towards studying interpretation (see also Archer and Wearing, 2003; Deacon, 2004; Reisinger and Steiner, 2006). We view the combination of realist/positivist and relativist/interpretive approaches to the study of interpretation, environmental education, and tour guiding as a sign of the increasing epistemological and theoretical sophistication in recent research in interpretation. It 218 | part iii social science theory and application reflects similar trends throughout the social sciences, and suggests a growing awareness of the utility of theory among interpretation researchers. However, it must also be noted that the long-standing split between interpretation professionals and academic professors is still in evidence, despite the efforts by both groups to bridge this gap: professionals are sometimes less convinced of the need for research and theoretical frameworks (Larson, 2004). INTERPRETATION IN PRACTICE Interpretation is both a science and an art (Tilden, 1977). As a science, it relies on proven learning principles in psychology, sociology, communications, and education; it also requires familiarity with the area’s visitors and their motivations. In addition, interpretation must be based on a thorough understanding of the natural and social sciences, in areas as diverse as geology, botany, history, paleontology, psychology, anthropology, geography, folklore, and zoology. As an art, interpretation responds to the unpredictable interactions with the park audience. The process and rationale for selecting a given concept may be based in the sciences, but the effective communication of that concept requires art. Elements such as drama, visual design, and music improve visual and verbal communications. Complex relationships may be introduced in an entertaining fashion to arouse the visitor’s interest; more refined treatments of specific concepts may then follow. Because interpretation involves meanings and relationships, it strives for a holistic approach rather than merely presenting isolated facts (Knudson et al., 2003). In the past, some interpreters and park managers have mistakenly assumed that all visitors desire interpretation. However, Stewart et al. (1998) suggest there are at least four types of potential users of interpretive sources: (1) ‘seekers’ actively search for interpretation; (2) ‘stumblers’ normally interact with interpretation by accident rather than design; (3) ‘shadowers’ are chaperoned by other people through interpretation; and (4) ‘shunners’ actively avoid interpretation. Each type of interpretive user poses unique challenges and opportunities to interpretive and park planners and staff. Another challenge is presented by the diverse range of interpretive needs, based on the variety of visitor ages, backgrounds, experiences, and personalities, acknowledged some time ago by Tilden (1977). This may require a variety of interpretive programming strategies to reach a variety of audiences on a variety of levels. Knowing the characteristics of park visitors requires thorough research. Such research is currently limited in Canada; Parks Canada and other park agencies need to increase their capacity for social science research, beginning by focusing on segmenting park visitors and non-visitors (see, e.g., Danchuk et al., 2000). Important communication principles have been summarized by Dick et al. (1974), Sharpe (1982), Knudson et al. (2003), and Marion and Reid (2007). While more complicated than can be presented here, communication and the tendency to change opinion will be improved by understanding and integrating three components of the interpretive experience: the communicator, the message, and the receiver. First, communication is improved if the communicator is: well-informed, intelligent, and trustworthy; is well-liked; states at least one opinion with which the receiver agrees; gets and holds the attention of the receiver; and uses credible sources. In one example, Manfredo hvenegaard, shultis & butler: the role of interpretation | 219 and Bright (1991) found that users of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness were more persuaded by information packets if they were perceived to be credible. Second, messages are more effective if they use good grammar; are clear, concise, and consistent; gain the attention of the receiver; are understandable; relate to the interests of the receiver; have a moderate, versus substantial, difference in opinion; cater to diverse interests; provide an appropriate means of action for the receiver; and, for complicated messages, state conclusions clearly. Messages with a request to change behaviour are more likely to be successful if based on ecological rather than social reasons (Marion and Reid, 2007). For example, closing an area due to ecological impacts from visitor use is normally much more strongly supported than closing an area due to lack of funds or overcrowding. Overall, the experience should be rewarding and fun for the receiver. To provide one example, Morgan and Gramann (1989) found that the effectiveness of interpretive programs (in this case, reflecting improved attitudes towards snakes) was not related to the amount of information. The level of involvement, especially a combination of exposure, modelling, and direct contact, was much more important in improving attitudes about snakes (see also Guy et al., 1990). Similarly Bitgood and Patterson (1993) found that visitors spent more time reading if the exhibits minimized the number of words used in the labels, enlarged letter size, avoided distractions, and were relevant to and placed near the objects being discussed. Third, acceptance of the interpretive message is more likely if the receiver exposes him/herself to communications of interest; is made to feel at ease; is motivated by group membership; and continues discussion on the issue with like-minded people. For example, Manfredo and Bright (1991) found that less-experienced wilderness canoeists (i.e., with less confidence about the area or with canoeing in general) were more persuaded by information than more experienced canoeists. Orams (1996) outlines a model for interpretation programs that emphasizes the affective (i.e., attitudes, feelings, emotions, and value systems) and cognitive domains (i.e., knowledge and perception). Including the former recognizes that knowledge alone does not change attitudes and values; they need to be addressed directly. Related to the latter, an interpretive program can develop cognitive dissonance or a dynamic disequilibrium by ‘throwing people off balance’. Returning to the example of feeding wildlife, if people want wildlife populations to thrive but learn that such feeding behaviour can cause harm, their behaviour is dissonant with their goals. Such psychological discomfort creates a ‘teachable moment’ (Forestell, 1991), causing people to ask ‘how’, ‘why’, and ‘when’ types of questions about their behaviour. To induce behaviour change to achieve management goals, interpretive programs should follow these attempts to change knowledge and attitudes by providing a motivation to act (e.g., to resolve their cognitive dissonance) and opportunity to act (appropriate to the skill level of visitors). This should be followed by evaluation and feedback. FORMS OF INTERPRETATION In selecting a form of interpretation, interpreters should consider a variety of factors (Sharpe et al., 1994). First, interpreters should consider visitors’ need for orientation, use of other facilities, group size, language barriers, and varying backgrounds. Second, related to the natural environment, interpreters should consider relevant interpre- 220 | part iii social science theory and application tive themes, appropriate timing of events, vulnerability of park features, and potential safety hazards. Finally, interpreters should consider how interpretive efforts further the park agency’s goals, in the context of investment, maintenance, and replacement costs. Table 8.1 provides a list of organizations and publications that examine many of these issues. Interpretation takes two basic forms: (1) personal interpretation (e.g., guided hikes) involves direct contact between the interpreter and the visitor, (2) and non-personal interpretation connects visitors with inanimate interpretive media (e.g., signs). Personal Interpretation Informational services tell visitors where specific facilities and opportunities are located and how to make use of them, but do not involve interpretive programs, as described below. Scheduled services, using people as interpreters in this era of high-tech gadgetry, remain one of the most popular and effective forms of interpretive events. These events take place at a predetermined time and are advertised accordingly. Many examples are described below. Guided tours, led by interpreters, encourage interactions between visitors and the natural environment. Audiovisual presentations are effective ways to convey abstract messages and provide excellent substitute experiences. Prop talks, using artifacts as focal points of a talk, can also provide valuable first-hand involvement. Dramatic presentations require more elaborate production but can prove highly effective and entertaining. Point duty involves stationing an interpreter at a prominent feature or gathering place during TABLE 8.1 Interpretation Organizations and Publications Organization Publication Website Interpretation Canada: An Association for Heritage Interpretation Interpscan www.interpcan.ca/new/ National Association for Interpretation Journal of Interpretation Research,The Interpreter Interpretation www.interpnet.com/ Association for Heritage Interpretation www.heritage-interpretation. org.uk/ Journal of Experiential Education Canadian Journal of Environmental Education www.aee.org/ North American Association for Environmental Education Environmental Communicator naaee.org/ Heldref Publications: Helen Dwight Reid Educational Foundation Journal of Environmental Education www.heldref.org/jenve.php Association for Experiential Education Canadian Network for Environmental Education and Communication and Lakehead University cjee.lakeheadu.ca/ hvenegaard, shultis & butler: the role of interpretation | 221 periods of high visitation. Travelling point duty or roving duty is similar, but the interpreter moves through an area, informally interpreting sites to people who are encountered. Impromptu events are not formally scheduled but are well planned; they are impromptu only for the visitor. This might involve, for example, the sudden presence of an interpreter on a beach with table, aquarium, net, bioscope, and sample jars to offer visitors a close look at sand particles and aquatic invertebrates. Living interpretation demonstrates a historical lifestyle that is different from that of the visitors. Living interpreters in period costumes and authentic settings carry out dayto-day activities, showing visitors how people actually lived, often with technical information or authentic products as an additional feature. Extension programs are taken into communities or schools or communicated through various media, with the intention of expanding the audience for an interpretive message. Non-Personal Interpretation Visitor centres provide visitors with essential information about an area and its values, special features, opportunities for the visitor, and overall role in the park system. Visitor centres can also provide important facilities for visitors and staff. Exhibits at the visitor centre or in a park near key natural features may include kiosks, dioramas, artifacts, reconstructions, and models. Exhibits should be versatile, so they can respond to changes in information and season. Signs interpret natural or cultural features in the immediate vicinity; readers can decide what to read and how fast to read it. Self-guided interpretive trails use signs or brochures to help guide visitors to interesting features that might otherwise be overlooked or not fully appreciated (Sharpe, 1982; Knudson et al., 2003). Publications provide more detailed information, and can be taken home as souvenirs and referred to many times after a visit. Websites can be referenced off-site, allowing the visitors to be better informed about unique park features, opportunities, and services prior to their visits. Recent research suggests that park managers should be aware of these many forms of interpretation. The effectiveness of interpretation seems to be increased through the provision of several types of interpretative media, as various types of visitors with different motivations will either ignore interpretation altogether or will access only certain types of interpretation in certain locations (Porter and Howard, 2002; Manning, 2003). The question of the effectiveness of interpretation is a critical one, and is discussed in greater detail below. INTERPRETATION AS A MANAGEMENT TOOL As Sharpe (1982: 9) notes, one of the main benefits of park interpretation programs is to ‘motivate the public to take action to protect their environment’. Managers use interpretation to reduce negative visitor impacts on the environment, minimize destructive behaviour, decrease enforcement problems, and guide visitors towards designated and selected locations (Hendee and Dawson, 2002). Interpretation can also minimize public safety incidents by emphasizing common public safety concerns in the park. As Boxes 8.3 and 8.4 suggest, park agencies should view interpretation as one of several approaches needed to ensure protection of the park environment, 222 | part iii social science theory and application including protective facility design, proper legal designation, and a commitment to enforcement. In some cases, interpretation has unintended side effects. For example, interpretation can emphasize that rare species have been severely impacted by off-trail use; however, managers should be aware that this can result both in increased understanding of the issues and in increased searching, and subsequent off-trail use, for those same rare species (Cialdini, 1996). Interpretation can promote public understanding of an agency’s goals and objectives. Interpretation can demonstrate, by example, the agency’s philosophies about environmental protection and the intrinsic value of its natural and cultural heritage. This will hopefully improve its public image and solidify public support for the agency’s goals. The park agency may also choose to highlight, through interpretation, the values of and issues facing the agency. Is Interpretation Effective? The number of studies assessing the effectiveness of interpretation has increased over the last decade, driven in part by a focus on accountability in the public sector and budget cuts in most protected area systems (Dearden and Dempsey, 2004; Shultis, 2005). BOX 8.3 Examples of Interpretation-Effectiveness Studies Interpretation and Resource Protection In Kananaskis Country, Alberta, one year after starting an innovative poster campaign illustrating commonly picked flowers (e.g., ‘Wanted ALIVE not dead’), the number of visitors reprimanded by park staff for picking flowers decreased by 50 per cent (Wolfe, 1997). In the 1970s, staff at Dinosaur Provincial Park, Alberta noted low compliance from visitors to restricted-area signs. Within days after organizing interpretive hikes into interesting areas outside of the restricted area, the number of visitors observed within the restricted areas decreased nearly 90 per cent (Wolfe, 1997). Interpretation and Public Safety Near the Bonneville Lock and Dam, along the Columbia River, at least one person had drowned for five years in a row. The drownings resulted from improper anchoring. Sturgeon anglers were using anchor ropes that were too short in the deep, fastmoving water; the bows of the boats were simply pulled under the water. In response, interpreters developed new safe-anchoring posters and passed them out to anglers. In addition, interpreters placed large signs at boat ramps, developed an interactive video, and made contacts with supply stores. In the five years after the ‘Safe Anchoring in Current’ program was initiated, no visitors drowned (Barry, 1993). After noting an increase in bears frequenting campsites, staff at Peter Lougheed Provincial Park, Alberta, initiated a ‘Bear Paw Program’. They placed bear paw-shaped cards (with information from the bear’s perspective) on the tables of campers who left their campsites in an unsuitable manner. Within one year, the number of problem campsites had decreased significantly (Wolfe, 1997). hvenegaard, shultis & butler: the role of interpretation | 223 Interpretation and Long-term Knowledge Many studies show that interpretive programs increase short-term knowledge, but how long is that knowledge retained? Knapp and Yang (2002) interviewed park visitors on the bats of Indiana one year after they had participated in a one-hour evening interpretive program on the subject in Hoosier National Forest. Based on visitor responses, three factors affecting attention paid to the program included novelty, personal significance, and speaker qualities. Long-term memory was influenced by program activities, prior knowledge/misconceptions, and visual imagery. Interpretation Impacts on Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviour Does knowledge influence attitudes and, subsequently, behaviour? Tubb (2003) conducted pre- and post-visit interviews with respondents at the High Moorland Visitor Centre in Dartmoor National Park, England. First, post-visit respondents answered knowledge questions 4–13 per cent more correctly than pre-visit respondents. Second, among 11 attitude statements, post-visit respondents had significantly stronger protection attitudes than pre-visit respondents for only two attitudes (role of park agency and feeding of animals). Third, regarding behavioural change, postvisit respondents were more aware of actions they could take to protect the park than pre-visit respondents, but no significant difference was found in their intentions to act in a way to reduce their environmental impact. Who Is Likely to Use or Read Interpretive Information? On Fraser Island, Australia, all registering visitors receive a ‘Be Dingo-Smart’ interpretive brochure about how to have safe experiences around dingoes. According to Porter and Howard (2002), only 59 per cent of respondents recalled receiving the brochure (lower for younger respondents), and half stated they had read the brochure (lower for individuals and groups of friends and for younger respondents). Wildlife watchers and hikers were more likely to read on-site interpretation. Knowledge about dingoes was lower for younger respondents and for respondents travelling with friends. In addition, a greater number of academic researchers, primarily from Australia and the United States, are conducting research in this area. The majority of researchers use a positivistic, empirical approach to assessing interpretive effectiveness, with quantitative research approaches using visitor surveys the norm in this research area. However, a small but increasing number of scholars have questioned this traditional conceptualization of interpretation and interpretation research (Staiff et al., 2002). Tubb (2003) notes that broader research in education and communication points to one main finding: human behaviour is extremely complex and resistant to change, and educational theories and processes have only limited success in effecting attitudinal or behaviour change. Moreover, the link between beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviour—as posited by theories of reasoned action and planned behaviour—has led to important advances in understanding human behaviour, but predicting human behaviour using 224 | part iii social science theory and application these models has seen limited success (Conner and Armitage, 1998; Godin and Kok, 1996). Given the difficulty of researchers in education, psychology, and communications to be able to predict or meaningfully effect attitudinal or behavioural change, the ability of one short-term interpretive program during recreationists’ or tourists’ leisure time in a non-captive setting (Orams, 1997; Tubb, 2002; Knapp and Yang, 2002) to create significant attitudinal or behavioural change may be an unfair proposition. Perhaps the most difficult issue in measuring the effectiveness of interpretation is deciding what interpretation is supposed to achieve (Knapp and Benton, 2004). As previously noted, interpretation has always had very lofty goals: ‘Through interpretation, understanding; through understanding, appreciation; through appreciation, protection’ (Tilden, 1977: 38). Tilden’s objectives of ‘provocation’ and ‘revelation’ are also difficult to assess (Beckmann, 1999). Interpretation is both a management tool and a leisure experience, which also adds to the difficulty in defining ‘effectiveness’. The link between information, interpretation, environmental education, and tour guiding also provides challenges, as all of these activities are related yet each may have differing goals and objectives. Marion and Reid (2007) identify four categories of research assessing interpretive effectiveness: knowledge gain, behavioural change, redistributing visitors, and changes in resource conditions (see also Manning, 2003). Interpretation is conceptualized as both a management tool and a communication/education strategy. No research has tackled the ‘protection’ part of the interpretive equation; it is extremely difficult to design research that could assess the impact of specific interpretive programs on longterm visitor behaviours that would serve to ‘protect’ parks (e.g., volunteering, employment/career choices, public input into decision-making, and membership in environmental groups). Similar research assessing the potential long-term impact of early-life outdoor experiences on environmental attitudes and behaviour has also proven to be methodologically challenging (e.g., Bixler et al., 2002; Hahn and Kellert, 2002; Ewert et al., 2005). In terms of information and knowledge gained from interpretation, the research suggests that interpretation often provides statistically significant increases in knowledge (reviewed in Manning, 2003; Marion and Reid, 2007). These studies typically assess short-term information or knowledge gains, normally using a quasi-experimental, preand post-test soon after the interpretive intervention. The research on impacts on behaviour are less impressive, suggesting that interpretation programs do not always significantly affect visitor behaviour; informational sanctions often worked as well as or better than interpretive programs, and non-personal forms of interpretation (e.g., signs) often were as effective as personal forms of interpretation (e.g., presentations) (see Manning, 2003; Marion and Reid, 2007). This type of research is sometimes limited by the use of self-reported behaviour rather than actual behaviour (or a combination thereof) to assess visitor behaviour. Even though redistributing visitors to low-use areas is not always considered an appropriate management strategy for minimizing visitor impacts (Leung and Marion, 2000), a limited amount of research has shown that different types of information and interpretation can disperse use in protected areas. Finally, limited research suggests that changes in resource conditions (including depre- hvenegaard, shultis & butler: the role of interpretation | 225 ciative behaviour such as littering) can be lowered through the use of interpretation and information (Wells and Smith, 2000; Manning, 2003; Marion and Reid, 2007). In sum, an increasing body of knowledge using a variety of theoretical and research approaches to study the effectiveness of interpretation is available. Increasingly, qualitative research is being used to assess the social construction of meaning created by interpreters and visitors. The nascent nature of much of this research in interpretation, the variety of definitions of ‘effectiveness’ and goals of interpretation used, the assessment of various types of heritage communication (i.e., information, personal and nonpersonal forms of interpretation, environmental education and tour guiding each can be referred to as ‘interpretation’), and the variety of locations used (e.g., frontcountry versus backcountry; parks versus museums) all make it difficult to come to any firm conclusions on the effectiveness of interpretation. It does seem apparent, however, that interpretation in various forms and locations in protected areas can be effective in creating short-term changes in visitor attitudes, knowledge, and (to a lesser extent) behaviour. The longer-term implications, or how these experiences combine with other contextual information (e.g., media, other life experiences) to ‘make meaning’ for visitors participating in interpretation in protected areas is as yet terra incognita (Ewert et al., 2005). These findings for interpretation are equivalent to findings in the voluminous environmental education literature: research suggests that one-time environmental education programs may have short-term impacts on knowledge and attitudes, but behavioural changes are much more difficult to generate. For example, Bogner (1998: 28) concluded that, to be effective, environmental education programs needed to incorporate ‘a combination of first-hand experience, participatory interaction, adequate preparation and subsequent reinforcement’. It seems likely that similar requirements would be necessary for interpretation to become more effective in the long-term. INTERPRETIVE PLANNING Without planning, interpretive programs can easily become ineffective or redundant. Several planning models are available for interpretation. The model by Sharpe et al. (1994) involves seven logical steps. The interpretive planner should work with other management specialists to determine objectives, take inventory, analyze data, synthesize alternatives, develop the plan, implement the plan, and evaluate and revise the plan. Throughout the planning process, planners should consider each objective of interpretation and make appropriate connections among them. Another interpretation planning model by McArthur (1998) requires three key stages for successful interpretation. The first stage is to define a target audience, gaining an understanding of the group’s demographics, motivations, expectations, and satisfactions. The second stage is to determine the content and structure of the interpretive message. This is considered within the hierarchy of interpretive themes, concepts, and messages. The third step is to select a technique, understanding its inherent advantages and disadvantages. The latter model is applicable to interpretive efforts in Canada’s national parks. First, visitors can be grouped according to experience, use history, trip behaviour, motivations, 226 | part iii social science theory and application BOX 8.4 Interpretation to Manage Dolphin Watching in Australia At a resort in Tangalooma, Australia, about 40 km east of Brisbane, tourists have the opportunity to hand-feed wild bottlenose dolphins. Prior to 1993, resort staff running the dolphin feeding program provided only informal instructions as part of their management strategy to control interactions between dolphins and tourists. Some of the rules included: only supervised entry allowed into the feeding area, limited amount of fish fed to dolphins, no touching or swimming with dolphins, contact time minimized, people with colds or flu not allowed to feed dolphins, and no photography in or near the water. One staff member made sure that tourists wanting to feed dolphins disinfected their hands before touching the animals, and another staff member helped people feed the dolphins. In 1994, a structured interpretive program was implemented with three main features. First, a Dolphin Education Centre provided information and served as the location where tourists could collect a limited number of free tokens, which allowed visitors to feed dolphins later that night. Second, people with tokens were given an educational briefing about the dolphins and the rules regarding feeding. Third, a public address system allowed staff to talk to feeders and observers during the feeding sessions (focusing on the behaviour and ecology of dolphins, and related environmental responsibilities of visitors). Researchers measured the effectiveness of interpretation on visitor behaviour. They observed and videotaped feeding sessions before and after the new interpretive program to count inappropriate behaviours and cautions (Orams and Hill, 1998). Standardized to 100 feeding events, the number of touches in the control group dropped from 6.7 in 1993 to 1.2 in 1994. As well, the number of staff cautions dropped from 2.6 to 1.2, and the number of other inappropriate behaviours dropped from 3.2 to 1.1. At the same time, researchers measured the impact on the tourists (Orams, 1997) by asking questions about their experience immediately after and 2–3 months after the feeding. Although high levels of enjoyment exist for both groups, the interpretive program increased the level of enjoyment for 1994 visitors, especially their desire for more information. Knowledge levels of 1994 visitors were significantly higher than those of 1993 visitors. The same was true for increases in environmentally conscious attitudes, but intentions to participate in environmentally friendly behaviour were not significantly different. However, the 1994 visitors increased their actual environmentally friendly behaviour; they removed beach litter, made donations, and became involved in environmental issues. attitudes towards interpretation and park management, or demographic characteristics. Visitor types are best analyzed at the park level, and planners often use techniques from the Visitor Activity Management Process (Nilsen and Taylor, 1998). This process requires an understanding of the demographic, attitudinal, and activity characteristics of each visitor group to guide visitor management. This information also can assist interpreters in planning, marketing, and evaluating interpretive activities. hvenegaard, shultis & butler: the role of interpretation | 227 Second, the content of interpretive messages is guided by national policy and adapted to individual parks. Nationally, the purpose of interpretation is to encourage visitors to appreciate, understand, and support: • Canada’s system of nationally significant heritage places; • the essence of each heritage place and how it is significant to the country and relevant to individuals; • the need to protect heritage resources (Parks Canada 1998b); although not directly stated, the protection of ecological integrity should be the primary purpose for interpretation (Parks Canada Agency 2000). Thus, across the system, interpretation focuses on messages about the national park system, ensuring ecological integrity, and issues of national significance. Individual parks then highlight national and park-specific issues as they relate to these messages. For example, each park could interpret the status of completing the national parks system, how the park is representative of its natural region, and why the park is of national significance. Similarly, each park could interpret species that are endangered at the national level and that are found in the park. Messages should complement current site-level management practices to promote ecological integrity. Interpretive messages should also be placed in a regional or national context, and relate to broader environmental issues (Parks Canada, 1994), such as global warming, acid rain, recycling, and water quality. Finally, each park chooses the mode of delivering each interpretive message, as discussed earlier. In times of cutbacks, choosing an interpretive technique is heavily influenced by funding and staffing. However, subject to these constraints, an interpretive technique should be chosen for its ability to reach the target audience, effectively interpret the target message, and fulfill the broader goals of interpretation. CONCLUSION Interpretation in North America has an amazing history of inspirational, dedicated, and professional staff. Interpretation in protected areas fulfills several important goals derived from legislation, policy, societal attitudes and values, and visitor behaviour. Significant and tangible benefits result from park interpretive efforts; these accrue to the visitor, park environment, park agency, and ecosystems beyond the park boundaries. Unfortunately, the full importance of interpretation is not often reflected in a park’s staffing and budgetary priorities. Evidence for this comes in many forms. For example, as budgets rise or fall, interpreters are often the last to be hired and the first to be fired. Many full-time interpreters have been replaced by seasonal employees (Parks Canada Agency, 2000). Budgets have been severely cut, forcing staff to rely on the least costly, and in many cases least effective, interpretive methods, when such programs survive at all. In recent years, attempts have been made by several provincial governments to privatize programs in a global trend to convert park operations from public domain to profit-motivated privatization. The BC government’s shortsighted decision to cut publicly funded interpretation in 2001 provides an extreme example of these trends. 228 | part iii social science theory and application In many parks, interpretation is under-utilized as a park management service. There are at least three reasons for this. First, few managers—who control the park budgets— actually possess a background in interpretation or communications, leading to a poor understanding of interpretation’s potential and role in the ecological and visitor management mandates of parks. Second, and perhaps most importantly, interpretation is generally poorly integrated into the park planning and management efforts. This results, for example, in interpretive staff located in buildings that offer little interaction with other park operational staff. Moreover, it is often unclear how interpretation and environmental education relate to individual park management plans or system planning policies. Third, managers are rarely familiar with published research on the effectiveness of interpretation. Without this knowledge, such managers rarely consider interpretation as an important management tool, nor do they actively promote interpretation in setting budgetary priorities. Programs are also poorly supported because of a lack of useful information on park user demographics and preferences; interpretive content is often narrowly or inappropriately focused; unimaginative communication techniques are often used; and evaluation is generally lacking (Sharpe, 1982; Nyberg, 1984; Wolfe, 1997; McArthur, 1998; Knudson et al., 2003). As a further constraint on the expanse and support of interpretive programs, the unique and intrinsic features of individual parks are poorly celebrated from a systems perspective or poorly aligned to the seasonal specialties of the calendar year. Environmental education opportunities with local schools seem more reluctantly accommodated than encouraged and facilitated. Few parks effectively promote their relevance beyond the park boundaries and training opportunities are limited and rarely encouraged. However, at the federal level, at least in Parks Canada and the National Park Service (United States), this situation appears to be changing; indeed, outreach programs are being emphasized much more than on-site interpretation, especially among ‘new’ (recent immigrants), urban, and young residents (e.g., National Parks Service, 2003; Parks Canada Agency, 2006b). There is a concern that these populations are not engaging in protected areas to the same extent as the ‘traditional’ visitors, which may lead to decreased support for these areas. Parks Canada is responding to these concerns by increasing the profile of ‘heritage communication’ through its ‘Engaging Canadians’ campaign and its creation of the External Relations and Visitor Experience Directorate at the head office level (Parks Canada Agency, 2006b). Effective interpretation is essential to the successful management and operation of park and protected area systems. Protected areas cannot survive as islands. Their survival is closely tied to people’s attitudes, beliefs, and values. Public support, at both the political and community levels, is necessary to help an area succeed in meeting its conservation and preservation goals (Parks Canada Agency, Performance, Audit and Review Group, 2005). An important goal of any protected area is to give local residents and visitors information to increase their awareness and understanding of the area’s natural values and to relate these experiences to modern life. Achieving this goal will result in informed people who have a deeper appreciation for their area’s natural and cultural heritage, and who transfer these values and experience into their daily lives. Attitudes towards the environment are learned, not inborn. hvenegaard, shultis & butler: the role of interpretation | 229 Protecting parks and wilderness areas is, in many ways, comparable to a library’s acquiring important works to ensure the availability of the literature of the past and present. Acquisition and protection are indeed important, but the books have to be read and understood for their true worth to be realized. While the librarian (or park manager) may conserve the volumes, the visitor must also be shown how to read them. Most visitors to parks and wilderness settings today lack the experience to adequately ‘read’ such places. Their visits are comparable to passing through a corridor of valuable books, most of which are unreadable. Interpretation resolves this dilemma. It guides the visitor to discover the wonders contained within these volumes, to ‘experience this sense of wonder’, as Rachel Carson (1965) described it, to be moved emotionally and mindfully along the path of discovery, to be motivated to understand more, and to experience in the volumes of nature’s wealth and complexity an upwelling of pride in our heritage and an inner sense of belonging and richness in our personal lives. While this is an extremely tall order, interpretation—and the related techniques of environmental education and tour guiding—appear to be the best approaches we have for making such substantial changes at the individual and societal level. REFERENCES Ajzen, I. 1991. ‘The theory of planned behavior’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211. ———. 2006.‘The theory of planned behavior’. At: <www.people.umass.edu/aizen/tpb.diag.html>. Archer, D., and S. Wearing. 2003. ‘Self-, space, and interpretive experience: The interactionism of environmental interpretation’, Journal of Interpretation Research 8, 1: 7–23. Ballantyne, R. 1998. ‘Interpreting ‘visions’: Addressing environmental education goals through interpretation’, in D.L. Uzzell and R. Ballantyne, eds, Contemporary Issues in Heritage and Environmental Interpretation. London: The Stationery Office, 79–99. ——— and K. Hughes. 2001.‘Interpretation in ecotourism settings: Investigating tour guides’ perceptions of their role, responsibilities and training needs’, Journal of Tourism Studies 12, 2: 2–9. ——— and D. Uzzell. 1999. ‘International trends in heritage and environmental interpretation: future directions for Australian research and practice’, Journal of Interpretation Research 4, 1: 59–75. Barry, J.P. 1993. ‘Anchoring safely in current: An example of using interpretation to solve a management problem’, Legacy 4, 4: 22. Beckmann, E.A. 1999.‘Evaluating visitors’ reactions to interpretation in Australian national parks’, Journal of Interpretation Research 4, 1: 5–19. Bitgood, S.C., and D.D. Patterson. 1993. ‘The effects of gallery changes on visitor reading and object viewing time’, Environment and Behaviour 25: 761–81. Bixler, R.D., M.F. Floyd, and W.E. Hammitt. 2002. ‘Environmental socialization: Quantitative tests of the childhood play hypothesis’, Environment and Behavior 34, 6: 795–818. Bogner, F. 1998. ‘The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long-term variables of environmental perspective’, Journal of Environmental Education 29, 4: 17–30. Bramwell, B., and B. Lane. 1993. ‘Interpretation and sustainable tourism: The potential and the pitfalls’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1, 2: 71–80. Bright, A., M.J. Manfredo, M. Fishbein, and A. Bath. 1993. ‘Application of the theory of reasoned action to the National Park Service’s control burn policy’, Journal of Leisure Research 25, 3: 263–80. 230 | part iii social science theory and application Canada. 1990. National Parks Act. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Canadian Environmental Advisory Council. 1991. A Protected Areas Vision for Canada. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Carlsbad Caverns National Park. 2004. The National Park Service Role in American Education. Chihuahuan Desert Lab Manual: Umbrella – Project 0, Supplement 0.7. At: <www.nps.gov/ archive/cave/cdl/supp/p0s7.pdf>. Carson, R. 1965. The Sense of Wonder. New York: Harper & Row. Christie, M.F., and P.A. Mason. 2003.‘Transformative tour guiding: Training tour guides to be critically reflective practitioners’, Journal of Ecotourism 2, 1: 1–16. Cialdini, R.B. 1996. ‘Activating and aligning two kinds of norms in persuasive communications’, Journal of Interpretation Research 1, 1: 3–10. Cohen, E. 1985. ‘The tourist guide: The origins, structure and dynamics of a role’, Annals of Tourism Research 12: 5–29. Conner, M., and C. Armitage Jr. 1998. ‘Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28, 1429–64. Dahles, H. 2002.‘The politics of tour guiding: Image management in Indonesia’, Annals of Tourism Research 29, 3: 783–800. Danchuk, G., R. Weaver, and D. Dugas. 2000. ‘Social science at Parks Canada’, Proceedings of the Travel and Tourism Research Association Conference, 17–19 Sept. Whitehorse, Yukon, 45–51. Deacon, H. 2004. ‘Intangible heritage in conservation management planning: The case of Robben Island’, International Journal of Heritage Studies 10, 3: 309–19. Dearden, P., and J. Dempsey. 2004. Protected areas in Canada: Decade of change. Canadian Geographer 48: 225–39. Denzin, N.K., and Y.S. Lincoln. 2005. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Diamantis, D. 2004. Ecotourism: Management and Assessment. London: Thomson. Dick, R.E., D.T. McKee, and J.A. Wagar. 1974. ‘A summary and annotated bibliography of communication principles’, Journal of Environmental Education 5, 4: 1–13. Ewert, A., G. Place, and J. Sibthorp. 2005. ‘Early-life outdoor experiences and an individual’s environmental attitudes’, Leisure Sciences 27: 225–39. Fishbein, M., and M.J. Manfredo. 1992. ‘A theory of behavior change’, in M.J. Manfredo, ed., Influencing Human Behavior: Theory and Applications in Recreation, Tourism and Natural Resources Management. Champaign, Ill.: Sagamore, 29–50. Forestell, P.H. 1991. ‘Marine education and ocean tourism: Replacing parasitism with symbiosis’, in M.L. Miller, and J. Auyong, eds, Proceedings of the 1990 Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism. Newport, Ore.: National Coastal Resources Research & Development Institute, 35–9. Godin, G., and G. Kok. 1996. ‘The theory of planned behavior: A review of its applications to health-related behaviors’, American Journal of Health Promotion 11, 87–98. Green, D., and I. Shapiro. 1996. Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press. Grant, T., and G. Littlejohn. 2004. Teaching Green: The Middle Years. Toronto: Green Teacher. Guy, B.S., W.W. Curtis, and J.C. Crotts. 1990. ‘Environmental learning of first-time travellers’, Annals of Tourism Research 17: 419–31. Hahn, P.H., and S.R. Kellert. 2002. Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Ham, S.H., and B. Weiler. 2002. ‘Interpretation as the centrepiece of sustainable wildlife tourism’, in R. Harris, T. Griffin, and P. Williams, eds, Sustainable Tourism: A Global Perspective. Amsterdam: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, 35–44. hvenegaard, shultis & butler: the role of interpretation | 231 Hendee, J., and C. Dawson. 2002. Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Protection of Resources and Values, 3rd edn, Golden, Colo.: Fulcrum Publishing. Hvenegaard, G.T. 1994. ‘Ecotourism: A status report and conceptual framework’, Journal of Tourism Studies 5, 2: 24–35. Hvenegaard, G.T., and P. Dearden. 1998. ‘Ecotourism versus tourism in a Thai national park’, Annals of Tourism Research 25: 700–20. Interpretation Canada. 2008. Interpretation Canada Homepage. At: <www.interpcan.ca/new/>. Knapp, D., and G.M. Benton. 2004. ‘Elements to successful interpretation: A multiple case study of five national parks’, Journal of Interpretation Research 9, 2: 9–25. ——— and L.-L.Yang. 2002. ‘A phenomenological analysis of long-term recollections of an interpretive program’, Journal of Interpretation Research 7, 2: 7–17. Knudson, D.M., T.T. Cable, and L. Beck. 2003. Interpretation of Cultural and Natural Resources. State College, Penn.: Venture. Kohlberg, L. 1976. ‘Moral stage and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach’, in T. Lickona, ed., Moral Development and Behaviour. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 31–53. Larson, D.L. 2004. ‘Research: A voice of our own’, Journal of Interpretation Research 9, 1: 69–71. Leung, Y.F., and J.L. Marion. 2000. ‘Recreation impacts and management in wilderness: A stateof-knowledge review’, in S.F. McCool, W.T. Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin, eds, Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference Proceedings. RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 23–48. Louv, R. 2005. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill. McArthur, S. 1998. ‘Introducing the undercapitalized world of interpretation’, in K. Lindberg, M.E. Wood, and D. Engeldrum, eds, Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners and Managers, vol. 2. North Bennington, Vt: Ecotourism Society, 63–85. Mackintosh, B. 2000. Interpretation in the National Park Service: A Historical Perspective. US National Park Service. At: <www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/mackintosh2/origins_ before_nps.htm>. Manfredo, M.J., and A.D. Bright. 1991. ‘A model for assessing the effects of communication on recreationists’, Journal of Leisure Research 23, 1: 1–20. Manning, R. 2003. ‘Emerging principles for using information/education in wilderness management’, International Journal of Wilderness 9, 1: 20–7, 12. Marnburg, E. 2001. ‘The questionable use of moral development theory in studies of business ethics: Discussion and empirical findings’, Journal of Business Ethics 32: 275–83. Marion, J.L., and S.E. Reid. 2007. ‘Minimizing visitor impacts to protected areas: The efficacy of low impact education programmes’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15, 1: 5–27. Morgan, J.M., and J.H. Gramann. 1989. ‘Predicting effectiveness of wildlife education programs: A study of students’ attitudes and knowledge toward snakes’, Wildlife Society Bulletin 17: 501–9. Moscardo, G. 1999. Making Visitors Mindful: Principles for Creating Sustainable Visitor Experiences through Effective Communication. Champaign, Ill.: Sagamore. Mueller, D.C. 2004. ‘Models of man: Neoclassical, behavioural and evolutionary’, Politics, Philosophy and Economics 3, 1: 59–76. National Park Service, US Department of the Interior. 2003. Renewing Our Education Mission: Report to the National Leadership Council. At: <www.nature.nps.gov/LearningCenters/new/ renewmission_jun03.pdf>. Nilsen, P., and G. Taylor. 1998. ‘A comparative analysis of protected area planning and management frameworks’, in S.F. McCool and D.N Cole, comps, Proceedings—Limits of Acceptable 232 | part iii social science theory and application Change and Related Planning Processes: Progress and Future Directions; 1997 May 20–22; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-371. Ogden, Utah: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 49–57. Nyberg, K.L. 1984. ‘Some radical comments on interpretation: A little heresy is good for the soul’, in G.E. Machlis and D.R. Field, eds, On Interpretation: Sociology for Interpreters of Natural and Cultural History. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press, 151–6. Orams, M.B. 1996. ‘Using interpretation to manage nature-based tourism’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 4, 2: 81–94. ———. 1997. ‘The effectiveness of environmental education: Can we turn tourists into ‘greenies’?’, Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 3: 295–306. ——— and G.J.E. Hill. 1998. ‘Controlling the ecotourist in a wild dolphin feeding program: Is education the answer?’, Journal of Environmental Education 29, 3: 33–8. Parks Canada. 1994. Guiding Principles and Operational Policies. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada. ———. 1997. National Parks System Plan, 3rd edn, Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada. ———. 1998a. State of the Parks, 1997 Report. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada. ———. 1998b. The Role of Heritage Presentation in Achieving Ecological Integrity. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Parks Canada Agency. 2000. Unimpaired for Future Generations? Protecting Ecological Integrity with Canada’s National Parks, vol. 2: Setting a New Direction for Canada’s National Parks. Ottawa: Report of the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada’s National Parks. ———. 2006a. Performance Report for the Period Ending March 31, 2006. At: <www.pc. gc.ca/docs/pc/rpts/rmr-dpr/archives/2005-06/par-par_e.pdf>. ———. 2006b. Corporate Plan 2006/07–2010/11. At: < www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/plans/plan2006-2007/ cp_0607-E.pdf >. ———, Performance, Audit and Review Group. 2005. National Performance and Evaluation Framework for Engaging Canadians: External Communications at Parks Canada. At: <www. pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/rpts/rve-par/pdf/audit_engaging_cdn_framework-e.pdf>. Pellikaan, H., and R.J. van der Veen. 2002. Environmental Dilemmas and Policy Design. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pergams, O.R.W., and P.A. Zaradic. 2006. ‘Is love of nature in the US becoming love of electronic media? 16-year downtrend in national park visits explained by watching movies, playing video games, Internet use and oil prices’, Journal of Environmental Management 80: 387–93. Petty, R.E., S. McMichael, and L.A. Brannon. 1992. ‘The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion: Applications in recreation and tourism’, in M.J. Manfredo, ed., Influencing Human Behavior: Theory and Applications in Recreation, Tourism and Natural Resources Management. Champaign, Ill.: Sagamore, 77–101. Porter, A.L., and J.L. Howard. 2002. ‘Warning visitors about the potential dangers of dingos on Fraser Island, Queensland, Australia’, Journal of Interpretive Research 7, 2: 51–63. Price, G.G. 2003. ‘Ecotourism and the development of environmental literacy in Australia’, E-Review of Tourism Research 1, 3: 72–5. Rasmussen, K. 2000. ‘Environmental education evolves: Developing citizens, furthering education reform’, Education Update 42, 1: 1–4. At: <www.ascd.org/ed_topics/eu200001_rasmussen. html>. Reisinger, Y., and C. Steiner. 2006. ‘Reconceptualizing interpretation: The role of tour guides in authentic tourism’, Current Issues in Tourism 9, 6: 481–98. Runte, A. 1997. National Parks: The American Experience, 3rd edn, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. hvenegaard, shultis & butler: the role of interpretation | 233 Saleh, F., and J. Karwacki. 1996. ‘Revisiting the ecotourist: The case of Grasslands National Park’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 4, 2: 61–80. Shankland, R. 1970. Steve Mather of the National Parks. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Sharpe, G.W. 1982. ‘An overview of interpretation’, in G.W. Sharpe, ed., Interpreting the Environment, 2nd edn, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 3–26. ———, C.H. Odegaard, and W.F. Sharpe. 1994. A Comprehensive Introduction to Park Management, 2nd edn, Champaign, Ill: Sagamore. Shultis, J.D. 1995. ‘Improving the wilderness: Common factors in creating national parks and equivalent reserves during the nineteenth century’, Forest and Conservation History 39, 3: 121–9. ———. 2005.‘The effects of neo-conservatism on park science, management and administration: Examples and a discussion’, George Wright Forum 22, 2: 51–8. Staiff, R., R. Bushnell, and P. Kennedy. 2002. ‘Interpretation in national parks: Some critical questions’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10, 2: 97–113. Stewart, E.J., B.M. Hayward, and P.J. Devlin. 1998. ‘The “place” of interpretation: A new approach to the evaluation of interpretation’, Tourism Management 19, 3: 257–66. Tilden, F. 1977. Interpreting Our Heritage, 3rd edn. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Tubb, K.N. 2003. ‘An evaluation of the effectiveness of interpretation within Dartmoor National Park in reaching the goals of sustainable tourism development’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11, 6: 476–98. Weaver, D.B. 2002. ‘The evolving concept of ecotourism and its potential impacts’, International Journal of Sustainable Development 5, 3: 251–64. Weaver, H.E. 1982. ‘Origins of interpretation’, in G.W. Sharpe, ed, Interpreting the Environment, 2nd edn, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 28–51. Weiler, B., and D. Davis. 1993.‘An exploratory investigation into the roles of the nature-based tour leader’, Tourism Management 14, 2: 91–8. Wells, M. and L. Smith. 2000. The Effectiveness of Non-Personal Media Used in Interpretation and Informal Education: An Annotated Bibliography. Fort Collins, Colo.: National Association for Interpretation. Wolfe, R. 1997. ‘Interpretive education: An under-rated element of park management?’, Research Links 5, 3: 11–12. Zell, L. 1992. ‘Ecotourism of the future: The vicarious experience’, in B. Weiler, ed., Ecotourism: Incorporating the Global Classroom. Canberra, Australia: Bureau of Tourism Research, 30–5. 234 | part iii social science theory and application KEY WORDS/ CONCEPTS communication decision-making theory ecotourism elaboration likelihood model environmental education extrinsic activity first-hand experience informal education interpretation interpretation effectiveness research interpretive planning intrinsic value mindfulness moral development theory non-personal interpretation personal interpretation rational actor model reductionist versus constructivist approaches theories of reasoned action and planned behaviour tour guiding visitor motivation STUDY QUESTIONS 1. List the major attributes of interpretation. How is providing interpretation different from providing information? 2. List the major benefits of interpretation for park managers and visitors. 3. Discuss the similarities and differences among interpretation, environmental education, and tour guiding 4. Discuss the role of interpretation in achieving the objectives of ecotourism. 5. Discuss the historical phases of park interpretation in Canada and the US. 6. What are the major theoretical foundations for interpretation? 7. Discuss why interpretation is both a science and an art. 8. Describe four types of potential users of interpretive services. 9. Describe how each of the following can make interpretation more effective: the communicator; the message; the receiver. 10. Describe the potential benefits and costs of personal and non-personal forms of interpretation. 11. Why is it difficult to measure the effectiveness of interpretation? What can researchers hope to learn about effectiveness? 12. Why is interpretive planning important? 13. Discuss the impact of interpretation on the experience of dolphin watching in Australia. 14. ‘In many parks interpretation is under-utilized.’ Discuss. 15. Select a park in your area. Review and critique the range of interpretive services provided. 16. Join a guided walk provided by interpreters in a park setting. Discuss the techniques used by the interpreter. Comment on what worked and did not work.