2011 16(1) journal · 2018-04-04 · a comparative study of interpretive podcasts and traditional...

journalof

interpretationR E S E A R C H

2011

16(1)

James Absher, Ph.D. Pacific Southwest Research

StationUSDA Forest ServiceRiverside, California

Gregory M. Benton, Ph.D.Department of Health, Human

Performance and RecreationUniversity of ArkansasFayetteville, Arkansas

Robert Bixler, Ph.D.Department of Parks, Recreation,

and Tourism ManagementCollege of Health, Education, and

Human DevelopmentClemson UniversityClemson, South Carolina

Rosemary Black, Ph.D. Senior Lecturer,School of Environmental SciencesCharles Sturt UniversityAlbury, New South WalesAustralia

Alan D. Bright, Ph.D.Department of Parks, Recreation

and Tourism Colorado State UniversityFort Collins, Colorado

John H. Burde, Ph.D.Department of Forestry Southern Illinois UniversityCarbondale, Illinois

Theresa Coble, Ph.D.Arthur Temple College of

ForestryStephen F. Austin State UniversityNacogdoches, Texas

Lesley Curthoys, Ph.D.School of Outdoor Recreation,

Parks and TourismLakehead University, Canada

William E. Hammitt, Ph.D.Department of Parks, Recreation

and Tourism ManagementCollege of Health, Education, and

Human DevelopmentClemson UniversityClemson, South Carolina

Doug Knapp, Ph.D.Department of Recreation and

Park AdministrationIndiana University Bloomington, Indiana

Brenda Lackey, Ph.D.College of Natural ResourcesUniversity of Wisconsin–Stevens

PointStevens Point, Wisconsin

Michael H. Legg, Ph.D.Arthur Temple College of

Forestry and AgricultureStephen F. Austin State UniversityNacogdoches, Texas

Ross J. Loomis, Ph.D.Department of PsychologyColorado State UniversityFort Collins, Colorado

Steven Martin, Ph.D.Environmental and Natural

Resource Sciences Department

Humboldt State UniversityArcata, California

Mark Morgan, Ph.D.Department of Parks, Recreation

and TourismUniversity of MissouriColumbia, Missouri

James Pease, Ph.D.Deptartment of Natural Resource

Ecology and Management Iowa State UniversityAmes, Iowa

Erin Seekamp, Ph.D.Department of ForestryCollege of Agricultural SciencesSouthern Illinois UniversityCarbondale, Illinois

Dave Smaldone, Ph.D.Division of Forestry West Virginia University

Gail A. Vander Stoep, Ph.D.Department of Community,

Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies

Michigan State UniversityEast Lansing, Michigan

John A. VeverkaJohn Veverka & AssociatesOkemos, Michigan

Associate Editors

Carolyn Widner Ward Chief Executive OfficerBlue Ridge Parkway FoundationAsheville, North Carolina

Editor

Jason Urroz Project DirectorHealthy Kids/Healthy ParksBlue Ridge Parkway FoundationAsheville, North Carolina

Editorial Assistant

Volume 16, Number 12011journal

of

interpretationr esearch

Cem BasmanAssistant ProfessorDepartment of Recreation and

Park AdministrationIndiana UniversityBloomington, Indiana Larry BeckProfessorDepartment of Recreation, Parks

and TourismSan Diego State UniversitySan Diego, California Ted CableAssistant Department Head and

Professor Dept of Horticulture, Forestry,

and Recreation ResourcesKansas State UniversityManhattan, Kansas Sam HamProfessor and DirectorCenter for International Training

& Outreach (CITO) Department of Resource

Recreation and Tourism College of Natural Resources University of Idaho Moscow, Idaho Bernard LaneDirectorRural Tourism Unit and

Architectural Conservation Programme

Co-editor, Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Center for the Historic Environment

Department of ArchaeologyUniversity of Bristol, England

Advisory Board

Gary Machlis Professor of Forest Resources

and Sociology, National Coordinator for the CESU

College of Natural ResourcesDepartment of Forest ResourcesUniversity of IdahoMoscow, Idaho Michael ManfredoProfessor, Department ChairColorado State UniversityNatural Resource Recreation and

TourismFort Collins, Colorado Joseph Roggenbuck Professor Natural Resource RecreationVirginia Polytechnic Institute and

State UniversityDepartment of ForestryBlacksburg, Virginia Sam VaughnAssociate Manager, Interpretive

PlanningHarpers Ferry CenterDenver Service Center Denver, Colorado Betty WeilerProfessor of TourismDepartment of ManagementBerwick CampusMonash UniversityNarre Warren, Australia

Tim Merriman Executive Director

Lisa BrochuAssociate Director

Paul Caputo Art and Publications Director

Jamie King Membership Manager

Deb Tewell Events Manager

Beth Bartholomew Business Manager

Carrie MillerCertification Program Specialist

Lou AndersonAdministrative Assistant

P.O. Box 2246Fort Collins, CO 80522888-900-8283 toll free970-484-8283970-484-8179 faxwww.interpnet.com

Copyright ©2011 ISSN 1092-5872Subscription: $35 US/Canada, $45 international

A Part of the EBSCO Information Services Group. EBSCO Publishing/EBSCOhost is the registered trademark of EBSCO Publishing.

NAI Staff

i n t e r p P r e s s

int

er

pP

re

ss



Contents3 A Note from the Editor Carolyn Ward

Research

7 As Good as the Real Thing? A Comparative Study of Interpretive Podcasts and Traditional Ranger Talks

Karen B. Henker, Greg Brown

25 A Descriptive Study of Guided Tours at Mammoth Cave National Park Mark Morgan, Cara Walker

35 Environmental Socialization Incidents with Implications for the Expanded Role of Interpretive Naturalists in Providing Natural History Experiences

Robert D. Bixler, J. Joy James, Carin E. Vadala

In Short

67 Evaluating the Effectiveness of Live Interactive Virtual Explorations Involving a Hard-to-Reach Native American Earth Lodge and a Pacific Island Volcanoes Site

Kimberly Mann Bruch, Hans-Werner Braun, Susan Teel 73 Interpretive effectiveness at Kanha Tiger Reserve, India Gregory M. Benton, Bitapi C. Sinha

Appendix

85 Submission Guidelines for Authors

A Note from the Editor

This issue of JIR includes three research articles and two “In Short” reviews and reports. Topics range from revisiting and updating some traditional and time-honored approaches and theories to bringing our discipline into the 21st century with podcasts and virtual explorations. As you read through the Journal, traveling from caves to tiger reserves, remember that our discipline is as varied and diverse as our locations, mediums, and messages, but what unites us as a field is our desire to make a measureable difference.

All of the articles in this issue provide information, guidance, and insight into how to capture that “measurable” difference and how to begin to communicate that to each other, managers, and practitioners of the science of interpretation. Remember to ask tough questions, imagine the impossible, and think beyond that which is now. In this economic climate, we have to be able to demonstrate our impact to the visitors, the resources and the managers that we serve. If we cannot, we make those tough economic decisions too easy.

I look forward to the future developments of our field through your quality submissions to JIR.

—C

RESEARCH

As Good as the Real Thing? A Comparative Study of Interpretive Podcasts and Traditional Ranger Talks

Karen B. HenkerInterpretive Ranger, National Park Service Graduate, Masters Program in Environmental StudiesGreen Mountain College, Poultney, [email protected](435) 719-2242

Greg BrownAssociate Professor of Environmental PlanningSchool of Geography Planning and Environmental ManagementUniversity of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4101Research Associate, Green Mountain College, Poultney, [email protected] (61) 07-3365-6654

AbstractThis study compared the effectiveness of three interpretive formats: online podcasts, the same podcasts viewed at a park’s visitor center (VC), and traditional ranger talks. Programs covered eight different topics but were all presented by the same interpreter. After viewing a program, visitors completed surveys assessing their emotional and intellectual responses and feelings of stewardship. Responses from talk participants were slightly stronger than those of both online podcast and VC podcast viewers for most indicators, especially smiles and intent to change behavior based on program content (p ≤ .01). Online podcast responses were stronger than VC podcast responses, particularly for viewers’ enjoyment, smiles, and level of personal interest (p ≤ .01). Podcasts viewed in the VC generated the weakest overall responses. Many of the differences between online podcast and ranger talk responses, though statistically significant, were not practically significant. These results provide initial empirical evidence to justify parks’ increasing investment in new media interpretation.

Keywordsnew media interpretation, podcast, survey

8 j o u r n a l o f i n t e r p r e tat i o n r e s e a r c h

IntroductionThe body of research on the effectiveness of interpretive programs is small but growing (e.g., Machlis, 1986; Ham & Weiler, 2006; and Morgan, 2009). Most of this research describes traditional forms of interpretation: paper publications, park signage, or ranger/docent programs. In the past decade, natural and cultural resource sites have begun to diversify their interpretive offerings to reach increasingly diverse audiences. Many parks are turning to new media interpretation such as cell phone tours, GPS Ranger, online virtual tours, and ranger podcasts at an increasing rate to target new visitor markets. Yet little research exists that examines the effectiveness of these new forms of interpretive offering. The research presented herein addresses this knowledge gap by comparing viewer responses to interpretive podcasts with those of traditional ranger-led interpretive programs.

When Cicero defined good forensic oratory, he may as well have been describing interpretation: “For he is the best orator who by speaking both teaches, and delights, and moves the minds of his hearers” (Cicero translated by Yonge, 1913). Through this art form, interpreters translate the languages of nature or historic events into something visitors can comprehend, “leading audiences from physical resources to their underlying meanings, from the tangible to the intangible” (Larsen, 2003, p. 7). As a primary means by which many visitors come to grasp a site’s relevance, interpretation is a cornerstone of the management plans of all National Park Service (NPS) sites, as well as many facilities overseen by private organizations.

A traditional interpretive talk may spend 15 to 60 minutes developing a theme relevant to a natural or cultural site. Programs may take the shape of a guided walk, a talk at an overlook, or a campfire presentation. Whatever the topic or method, a common goal of all interpretation is inspiration. Interpreters do more than instruct; they employ a variety of techniques to inspire both emotional and intellectual connections between visitors and the site’s resources, with the eventual aim of fostering a sense of shared stewardship. “The most effective interpreters orchestrate their interpretation to elicit… astonishment, wonder, inspiration, action, sometimes tears” (Beck & Cable, 2002, p. 2).

Given the importance of interpretation for large, tightly budgeted agencies like the National Park Service, it is surprising how little research has been done to assess the efficacy of interpretive programs. “While the effectiveness of picnic tables is clear, what do we know about the effectiveness of interpretation?” (Beckmann, 1999, p. 5). The attention of non-captive audiences is notoriously fickle and difficult to sustain, let alone to accurately evaluate (Ham, 1992). In surveys conducted by the Visitor Services Project of the University of Idaho, visitors to Canyonlands and Arches National Parks consistently ranked interpretation as one of the most important and best features of the parks (Littlejohn et al., 1990; Meldrum et al., 2004). Ham and Weiler’s (2007) bilingual survey of visitors at the Panama Canal Watershed showed a strong correlation between a reported high overall satisfaction level and expression of satisfaction with specific interpretive elements, such as visitor center exhibits, brochures, and contact with staff. These studies did not explore the reasons for that reported satisfaction, however, nor did they counter the notion that “people are entirely capable of being happy without learning” (Miles et al., 1982, quoted in Beckmann, 1999, p. 7).

Knapp and Benton (2004) attempted to advance the understanding of what constitutes an effective interpretive program. Their qualitative study consisted of semi-structured interviews with interpretive personnel and observation of audiences

k a r e n b . h e n k e r, g r e g b r o w n

v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 9

at interpretive programs. They identified the importance of dialogue and interaction between rangers and visitors to fully engage visitors’ interest and foster a sense of co-ownership of the experience. Interactive exchange is impossible for viewers of podcasts, which is one reason we hypothesized that podcast viewers would report comparatively lower levels of emotional and stewardship responses.

Research conducted at Dartmoor National Park in England (Tubbs, 2003) employed direct observation and a visitor survey to investigate whether written interpretation effectively delivered the park’s resource-protection message. The study found a small but statistically significant difference in visitor knowledge about stewardship between pre- and post-visit samples. “This increase in knowledge encouraged visitors to see how they could change their behavior to be more respectful of the natural environment” (Tubbs, 2003, p. 476). Intent to change behavior based on treatment program content is one of the indicators of interpretive effectiveness that we measured.

A similar mixed-methods study conducted at Carlsbad Caverns (Novey & Hall, 2006) evaluated the effect of interpretive audio tours on visitor knowledge and social behavior. Audio tour users scored higher on a post-test and were more likely to identify resource preservation as a primary message of the park than visitors who merely read the interpretive signage while touring the cave. Audio tours and signage are both non-personal interpretive media, whereas we sought to compare the effectiveness of a non-personal and a personal interpretive format.

The Visitor Voices Project (Coble et al., 2005; Coble, 2008) is an ongoing effort to analyze NPS visitors’ intellectual and emotional reactions to interpretive content (including park films, ranger programs, and brochures) and identify what visitor factors (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity, or prior park experiences) might influence those reactions. While the project is amassing a growing body of data on interpretive effectiveness, most results are unpublished and the research does not address new media forms of interpretation.

Two leaders in interpretive research, Ham and Weiler, have developed a toolkit that professes to give parks the ability to conduct their own assessments of the effectiveness of their in-person interpretive programs. Their product measures “outcomes consistent with the goals of tourism organizations, including enhancing the visitor experience and increasing the degree to which visitors think about the values being interpreted” (Ham & Weiler, 2006, p. vii). Their survey addresses visitors’ cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses to interpretation. We followed their example with regard to the structure and administration of our survey questionnaire, but we applied it to a new interpretive format: podcasts.

Interpretive PodcastsReports on the rising popularity of internet research (Pew Research Center, 2010), particularly for travel planning (Randall, 2008; Foresee Results, 2008), have spawned a service-wide movement to increase the NPS’s online presence and provide online interpretive programs, most commonly in the form of short videos, podcasts (video clips downloadable to an iPod or similar device), or so-called “Ranger Minutes.” These videos average three to five minutes in length and usually feature a uniformed park ranger interpreting one topic in brief strokes, intercut with images—either still or moving—and audio clips of park resources. Implicit in the traditional interpretive approach is the presence of an inspiring natural or cultural setting in which the interpretive experience

p o d c a s t s v s . r a n g e r ta l k s


takes place, but this foundation is lacking in an online interface. A park’s website may represent its resources only through visual and auditory slices. Our study sought to discover if these “slices” provide enough substance to generate an effective interpretive experience.

Dornan’s (2003) literature review on computer-based interpretation reported a very small body of research demonstrating its merits, much of which was conducted according to standards developed for museum studies. One such study (Schaller et al., 2003) applied cognitive development theory to identify age-based preferences among visitors viewing a museum website. Some studies have found that “websites provide a way to preserve memories and stay connected to…the interpretive site long after the visit is over” (Miller & Farrell, 2006, p. 27) but very few have examined the internet as a vehicle for creating an interpretive experience. Our study establishes a foundation on which more research can be developed.

Research SettingCanyonlands National Park encompasses 527 square miles (848 square kilometers) of sculpted high desert in the southeastern corner of Utah. The Green and Colorado rivers join at the approximate center of the park, dividing it into three districts. The Island in the Sky district receives the largest proportion of the park’s annual 430,000 visitors (Canyonlands, 2009), most of which occurs during the busy April–October tourist season. Only about 10% of park visitors attend an interpretive program during their visit, and this proportion has remained steady over the past decade (N. Holman, District Interpreter for Canyonlands National Park, personal communication, February 18, 2010).

Canyonlands NP also offers interpretive videos on its website to reach a broader and year-round audience, and to fulfill the agency directive to “reflect our diverse society by providing unique opportunities for all people to understand, appreciate, and participate in preserving our national and cultural heritage” (USDI NPS, 2003, p. 5). The eight short podcasts in the “Inside Canyonlands” series present a spectrum of the park’s resources, including its cultural history, geology, and native flora and fauna.

Research QuestionsTo compare the effectiveness of online podcasts, podcasts viewed in the visitor center, and short ranger talks, we posed the following specific research questions: (1) Are interpretive podcasts as effective as traditional interpretive talks (with identical content) at eliciting viewers’ intellectual, emotional, and stewardship responses?; (2) Do interpretive podcasts viewed in a park visitor center elicit stronger responses than identical podcasts viewed online?; (3) Do some topics of interpretive podcasts elicit stronger responses from viewers than others?; (4) Is there a relationship between interpretive program viewers’ characteristics—such as motives for viewing, gender, ethnicity, or education—and their responses?

MethodsTo answer the research questions, we used a static group comparison: a research design that has three groups, a post-test, and a treatment (Neuman, 2003). The independent variable (treatment) was a three- to five-minute interpretive program about one of eight topics (geology, cowboys, biological soil crust, Ancestral Puebloans, rock art, desert bighorn sheep, pothole ecology, and the Utah juniper tree), delivered in one of


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 11

two formats (podcast or live ranger talk), and experienced in one of two locations (at the Canyonlands NP Island in the Sky Visitor Center or viewed remotely on the park website). The same interpretive ranger (one of the primary researchers) presented all treatment programs. The post-test was an audience survey that was completed online by podcast viewers or on paper by ranger talk attendees. Statistical analysis of audience responses was conducted to identify any significant differences among the three test groups (online podcast, VC podcast, and ranger talk audiences), among the eight interpretive program topics, and across basic socio-demographic lines (gender, ethnicity, and education).

Survey InstrumentThe survey instrument asked viewers to record their responses to simple statements, such as “I enjoyed the program I just saw” and “I smiled or laughed at least once,” using a five-point Likert scale (representing “Strongly Disagree,” “Disagree,” “Neutral,” “Agree,” and “Strongly Agree”) and to answer two or three multiple-choice questions. Four statements measured viewers’ emotional responses: enjoyment, feelings of personal relevance, occurrence of smiles or laughter, and recognition of a thematic emotional element of each program. Four statements measured viewers’ intellectual responses: their curiosity, interest in the topic, and retention of key program facts. A fifth intellectual response question appeared only for programs with an overt stewardship message. Four statements assessed viewers’ stewardship responses: their gladness the park is protected, desire to help protect the park, intent to change behavior based on program content, and intent to relate program content to their friends or family. The final section of the survey queried viewers’ gender, ethnicity, education level, and motivations for viewing.

After a panel of subject-matter experts (including the chief of interpretation and district interpreter at Canyonlands NP, and the associate manager for interpretive planning at NPS Harpers Ferry Center, Denver Service Office) reviewed the survey questions, they were pre-tested on park visitors (n=10) and revised based on comments. The online survey was launched on the park website June 25, 2009. A podcast viewing station at the visitor center was launched July 1, 2009. Podcast viewers completed online surveys through September 1, 2009. (The two groups were clearly distinguished in the collection database.) Park visitors attended the treatment ranger talks between June 20 and October 8, 2009. Talk attendees completed paper surveys and placed them into a collection box immediately following each program.

Sampling DesignSince the interpreter (and primary researcher) was a uniformed, on-duty NPS employee, participation in all three treatments had to be voluntary and solicited strictly through signage. An explanatory sign posted atop a rack of blank survey forms was prominently visible during every treatment ranger talk. The presenter acknowledged the sign at the beginning of each program but did not overtly solicit participation. Similar signage inside the visitor center invited visitors to watch an interpretive podcast on the computer provided. The “Inside Canyonlands” webpage featured a link inviting all online visitors to complete a brief survey after watching one of the podcasts. All invitations to participate clearly indicated the study’s college sponsorship.



Running head: DO INTERPRETIVE PODCASTS WORK? 26

Table 1. Survey respondents by format, topic, and demographics

Topics Gender Education

To

tal

An

cest

ral

Pu

eblo

ans

Big

ho

rn S

hee

p

Bio

. S

oil

Cru

st

Co

wb

oy

s

Geo

log

y

Ro

ck A

rt

Po

tho

les

Uta

h J

un

iper

Men

Wo

men

Les

s th

an H

S

So

me

HS

HS

Gra

d

So

me

Co

lleg

e

AA

/AS

BA

/BS

MA

/MS

Ph

D/M

D/J

D

Ranger

Talk a 109 12 18 12 10 14 15 14 14 52 53 8 0 3 17 9 28 26 16

Online

Podcast 240 56 59 13 21 36 21 24 10 107 133 0 0 15 30 22 73 78 22

VC

Podcast 59 10 19 2 10 10 2 4 2 28 31 9 2 4 3 0 22 15 4 a Four ranger talk participants did not provide answers for gender and/or education questions

Table 2. Mean scores of eleven response indicators, by test group

Response Indicator a

Online

Podcast (n=221

b)

VC Podcast (n=59)

Ranger Talk (n=109)

Mean Std.

Dev. Mean

Std.

Dev. Mean

Std.

Dev.

emo

tio

nal

(ENJOYMENT) I enjoyed the program I saw. 4.78 .50 4.47 .77 4.83 .41

(SMILES) I smiled or laughed at least once during the

program. 4.15 .86 3.64 1.01 4.63 .73

(PERSONAL RELAVANCE) Something I heard or saw

reminded me of something in my own life. 3.81 .95 3.46 .90 3.74 .84

(RESPONSE TO THEME) c 4.50 .78 4.68 .66 4.70 .55

inte

llec

tual

(INTEREST) The information was interesting to me. 4.77 .49 4.47 .63 4.80 .40

(CURIOSITY) I am curious to learn more about an idea I

heard. 4.23 .82 3.95 .82 4.14 .74

(KNOWLEDGE SCORE) d .87 .18 .89 .18 .91 .18

stew

ard

ship

(GLADNESS PARK IS PROTECTED) Watching this

program made me glad this place is protected. 4.85 .43 4.68 .57 4.87 .36

(DESIRE TO HELP) I want to help protect it. 4.57 .69 4.42 .79 4.75 .49

(INTENT TO CHANGE BEHAVIOR) I will change my

behavior because of something I learned. 3.59 .99 3.53 1.01 4.09 .97

(INTENT TO TELL OTHERS) I will tell a friend or

family member something I learned from this program. 4.12 .85 4.12 .91 4.39 .72

a Responses recorded on a 5 point scale: 1= Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree

b Nineteen online submittals from family & friends were excluded from this and subsequent analysis.

c Assessed key emotional responses to each theme (e.g., “I am awed by the dramatic rock formations in the park.”)

d Generated from 2-3 questions about program content, with each correct answer scored as “1” and partially correct

answers scored as 0.5


Table 1. Survey respondents by format, topic, and demographics

Topics Gender Education

To

tal

An

cest

ral

Pu

eblo

ans

Big

ho

rn S

hee

p

Bio

. S

oil

Cru

st

Co

wb

oy

s

Geo

log

y

Ro

ck A

rt

Po

tho

les

Uta

h J

un

iper

Men

Wo

men

Les

s th

an H

S

So

me

HS

HS

Gra

d

So

me

Co

lleg

e

AA

/AS

BA

/BS

MA

/MS

Ph

D/M

D/J

D

Ranger

Talk a 109 12 18 12 10 14 15 14 14 52 53 8 0 3 17 9 28 26 16

Online

Podcast 240 56 59 13 21 36 21 24 10 107 133 0 0 15 30 22 73 78 22

VC

Podcast 59 10 19 2 10 10 2 4 2 28 31 9 2 4 3 0 22 15 4 a Four ranger talk participants did not provide answers for gender and/or education questions

Table 2. Mean scores of eleven response indicators, by test group

Response Indicator a

Online

Podcast (n=221

b)

VC Podcast (n=59)

Ranger Talk (n=109)

Mean Std.

Dev. Mean

Std.

Dev. Mean

Std.

Dev.

emo

tio

nal

(ENJOYMENT) I enjoyed the program I saw. 4.78 .50 4.47 .77 4.83 .41

(SMILES) I smiled or laughed at least once during the

program. 4.15 .86 3.64 1.01 4.63 .73

(PERSONAL RELAVANCE) Something I heard or saw

reminded me of something in my own life. 3.81 .95 3.46 .90 3.74 .84

(RESPONSE TO THEME) c 4.50 .78 4.68 .66 4.70 .55

inte

llec

tual

(INTEREST) The information was interesting to me. 4.77 .49 4.47 .63 4.80 .40

(CURIOSITY) I am curious to learn more about an idea I

heard. 4.23 .82 3.95 .82 4.14 .74

(KNOWLEDGE SCORE) d .87 .18 .89 .18 .91 .18

stew

ard

ship

(GLADNESS PARK IS PROTECTED) Watching this

program made me glad this place is protected. 4.85 .43 4.68 .57 4.87 .36

(DESIRE TO HELP) I want to help protect it. 4.57 .69 4.42 .79 4.75 .49

(INTENT TO CHANGE BEHAVIOR) I will change my

behavior because of something I learned. 3.59 .99 3.53 1.01 4.09 .97

(INTENT TO TELL OTHERS) I will tell a friend or

family member something I learned from this program. 4.12 .85 4.12 .91 4.39 .72

a Responses recorded on a 5 point scale: 1= Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree

b Nineteen online submittals from family & friends were excluded from this and subsequent analysis.

c Assessed key emotional responses to each theme (e.g., “I am awed by the dramatic rock formations in the park.”)

d Generated from 2-3 questions about program content, with each correct answer scored as “1” and partially correct

answers scored as 0.5


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 13

AnalysisThe responses to paper surveys were combined with online submittals for statistical analysis in SPSS® software. Answers to the knowledge questions were tallied into a single knowledge score with each correct answer scored as “1” and partially correct answers scored as “0.5.” Nineteen online submittals from friends or family of the interpretive ranger (identified by comments made in the “notes” field) were omitted from analysis. Initial descriptive analysis examined the means, variance, and normality of responses to the eleven indicators (ten Likert scale questions plus the knowledge score). The distribution of responses appeared skewed and non-normally distributed, a conclusion confirmed via the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (p ≤ .001) for all eleven response variables across the three test groups. Non-parametric statistical tests were used for subsequent data analysis.

We conducted an initial Kruskal-Wallis test to identify overall significant differences among the three test groups. To explore the influence of program format, we conducted Mann Whitney tests comparing responses of ranger talk attendees with all podcast viewers and pairwise analyses of talk attendees with VC podcast or online podcast viewers. To explore the influence of location, we conducted Mann Whitney tests comparing online podcast viewers and all in-park participants, plus pairwise comparisons of remote podcast viewers with each of the in-park test groups.

To address the research question of whether different program topics elicit different responses, we conducted a Kruskal-Wallis test to identify significant differences among responses to all eleven indicators across the array of program topics. When significant differences were identified, we conducted a series of Mann Whitney tests to compare audience responses to pairs of program topics in order to identify which programs elicited stronger responses than others.

Cross-tabs analysis was used to examine each test groups’ reported motivations for watching. We ran frequencies of socio-demographic variables to determine if study participants were representative of visitors to the national park. Viewer responses to the eleven indicators were compared by gender and level of formal education, both across all cases and within each of the three test groups.

ResultsDuring the data collection period, the website counter recorded 5,015 visits to the “Inside Canyonlands” webpage. Podcast viewers submitted 299 surveys (6.0% participation), including 240 from remote locations and 59 from viewers at the visitor center. Participation rates for podcasts varied greatly between program topics (see Table 1). During this same period, 320 park visitors attended 34 ranger talk treatments and submitted a total of 109 surveys (34% participation).

Survey responses were not normally distributed. Nearly all survey participants recorded medium to strong responses (3 to 5 out of 5) to all indicators and scored well (better than 87%) on the knowledge questions (see Table 2). The lowest mean Likert scale score was 3.46 (VC podcast viewers’ ability to relate to program content), while the majority of mean responses from all test groups were 4.0 or higher. The mean responses from ranger talk attendees slightly exceeded those of both locations of podcast viewers for nine out of eleven indicators (including the quiz), and surpassed those of VC podcast viewers in all instances. Online podcast viewers responded more strongly than VC podcast viewers on all but two indicators (response to theme and knowledge score). Overall differences were not large, however; only two of the ten Likert scale indicators




Table 4. Indicators of interpretive program effectiveness by format and viewing location

Response Indicator

Question 1: Format

(Talk vs. Podcast)

Question 2: Location

(In-park vs. Remote)

Mann-

Whitney U Z Sig.

a

Mann-

Whitney

U

Z Sig.

emo

tio

nal

ENJOYMENT 14926.0 -1.79 .073 19102.5 -1.24 .214

SMILES 9512.5 -6.34 .000 17145.5 -2.26 .024

PERSONAL RELAVANCE 16020.5 -.13 .900 18122.0 -1.73 .083

RESPONSE TO THEME 14787.5 -1.75 .080 17595.0 -2.67 .008

inte

llec

tual

INTEREST 14962.5 -1.66 .096 18858.5 -1.46 .144

CURIOSITY 15680.0 -.63 .531 17816.5 -2.14 .032

KNOWLEDGE SCORE 13912.5 -2.30 .022 17637.0 -2.26 .024

stew

ard

ship

GLADNESS PARK IS

PROTECTED 15607.5 -1.06 .291 19349.5 -1.13 .264

DESIRE TO HELP 13764.5 -2.92 .004 19010.5 -1.19 .234

INTENT TO CHANGE BEHAVIOR 11583.0 -4.68 .000 16867.0 -2.94 .003

INTENT TO TELL OTHERS 13372.5 -2.99 .003 17622.0 -2.33 .020

a Significant differences are italicized (p ≤ .05) or boldface (p ≤ .01).


Table 3. Differences in indicators of interpretative program effectiveness among three test

groups (online podcast, visitor center podcast, ranger talk) using Kruskal-Wallis test.

Response Indicator Chi-

Square df Sig.

a

emo

tio

nal

ENJOYMENT 17.759 2 .000

SMILES 49.940 2 .000

PERSONAL RELAVANCE 7.086 2 .029

RESPONSE TO THEME 5.425 2 .066

inte

llec

tual

INTEREST 19.918 2 .000

CURIOSITY 6.652 2 .036

KNOWLEDGE SCORE 6.034 2 .049

stew

ard

ship

GLADNESS PARK IS PROTECTED 8.192 2 .017

DESIRE TO HELP 9.601 2 .008

INTENT TO CHANGE BEHAVIOR 23.347 2 .000

INTENT TO TELL OTHERS 8.060 2 .018






Square df Sig.

a

emo

tio

nal

ENJOYMENT 17.759 2 .000

SMILES 49.940 2 .000



inte

llec

tual

INTEREST 19.918 2 .000



stew

ard

ship










Square df Sig.

a

emo

tio

nal

ENJOYMENT 17.759 2 .000

SMILES 49.940 2 .000



inte

llec

tual

INTEREST 19.918 2 .000



stew

ard

ship








Table 4. Indicators of interpretive program effectiveness by format and viewing location

Response Indicator

Question 1: Format

(Talk vs. Podcast)

Question 2: Location

(In-park vs. Remote)

Mann-

Whitney U Z Sig.

a

Mann-

Whitney

U

Z Sig.

emo

tio

nal

ENJOYMENT 14926.0 -1.79 .073 19102.5 -1.24 .214

SMILES 9512.5 -6.34 .000 17145.5 -2.26 .024

PERSONAL RELAVANCE 16020.5 -.13 .900 18122.0 -1.73 .083

RESPONSE TO THEME 14787.5 -1.75 .080 17595.0 -2.67 .008

inte

llec

tual

INTEREST 14962.5 -1.66 .096 18858.5 -1.46 .144

CURIOSITY 15680.0 -.63 .531 17816.5 -2.14 .032

KNOWLEDGE SCORE 13912.5 -2.30 .022 17637.0 -2.26 .024

stew

ard

ship

GLADNESS PARK IS

PROTECTED 15607.5 -1.06 .291 19349.5 -1.13 .264

DESIRE TO HELP 13764.5 -2.92 .004 19010.5 -1.19 .234

INTENT TO CHANGE BEHAVIOR 11583.0 -4.68 .000 16867.0 -2.94 .003

INTENT TO TELL OTHERS 13372.5 -2.99 .003 17622.0 -2.33 .020


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 15

differed by more than 0.5 points across the three test groups.Survey participants responded to some indicators more consistently than others.

Viewers’ reported intent to change their behavior based on program content varied more than any other indicator for all three test groups, while sentiments of gladness that park resources are protected were both high and largely consistent within each test group. Reponses of ranger talk attendees on all eleven indicators varied less than those of the other test groups. Responses from VC podcast viewers varied more than the other groups on eight of the eleven indicators.

Despite similarly high scores across all groups, the Kruskal-Wallis test revealed statistically significant differences within the three test groups’ responses to ten of the eleven indicators (see Table 3). At least one indicator from each of the three categories of responses (emotional, intellectual, and stewardship) showed strong significant difference (p ≤ .01).

Exploring the influence of program format and program location revealed more statistically significant differences. We found that live audiences’ smiles, desire to help, intent to change behavior, and intent to relate program content to others were significantly stronger (p ≤ .01) than podcast audiences (VC and online combined, see Table 4). We also found significant differences between the responses of all in-park participants (live and VC podcast combined) and remote podcast viewers regarding their response to theme and intent to change behavior (p ≤ .01) as well as smiles, curiosity, knowledge score, and intent to tell others (p ≤ .05).

The pairwise analysis controlling for location (VC podcast vs. ranger talk) yielded significant differences correlating with program format for seven indicators (see Table 5). Mean responses of ranger talk attendees were statistically significantly higher than


Table 5. Indicators of interpretive effectiveness by test group pairs

Response Indicator

VC Podcast vs. Talk Online vs. VC Podcast Online Podcast vs.

Talk

Mann-

Whitney

U

Z p

valuea

Mann-

Whitney

U

Z p

value

Mann-

Whitney

U

Z p

value

emo

tio

nal

ENJOYMENT 2368.5 -3.71 .000 4981.0 -3.75 .000 11729.0 -.58 .563

SMILES 1342.0 -6.60 .000 4659.5 -3.57 .000 7691.5 -5.28 .000

PERSONAL RELAVANCE 2586.5 -2.13 .033 5167.0 -2.58 .010 11426.5 -.66 .510

RESPONSE TO THEME 3133.0 -.36 .717 5725.0 -1.75 .081 10782.0 -1.89 .059

inte

llec

tual

INTEREST 2316.5 -3.76 .000 4765.0 -4.15 .000 11946.5 -.17 .864

CURIOSITY 2823.0 -1.40 .160 5257.5 -2.45 .014 11033.5 -1.33 .182

KNOWLEDGE SCORE 2904.5 -1.05 .294 6088.5 -.87 .384 10116.0 -2.44 .015

stew

ard

ship

GLADNESS PARK IS

PROTECTED 2715.5 -2.53 .011 5617.0 -2.54 .011 11841.0 -.43 .669

DESIRE TO HELP 2472.0 -3.09 .002 5799.5 -1.55 .121 10648.0 -2.16 .031

INTENT TO CHANGE

BEHAVIOR 2176.5 -3.62 .000 6287.0 -.44 .657 8507.0 -4.54 .000

INTENT TO TELL

OTHERS 2695.5 -1.89 .059 6444.5 -.15 .884 9944.0 -2.78 .005




those of VC podcast viewers on measures of enjoyment, smiles, interest, desire to help, and intent to change behavior (all p ≤ .01), and on gladness the park is protected and perceived relevance to self (p ≤ .05). Talk attendees also reported higher levels of curiosity, greater intent to tell others about the program, and more accurately answered questions about program content, but these differences were not statistically significant.

Within podcast viewers, location (VC vs. online) significantly influenced six response indicators. Enjoyment, smiles, interest, and feelings of personal relevance were quite significantly stronger (p ≤ .01) among online viewers than VC viewers, as were curiosity and gladness about park conservation (p ≤ .05). This is the only test result that showed a significant difference in visitors’ reported curiosity. The mean responses for identification of program theme, correct answers about program content, and intent to share program content with others were slightly higher among VC podcast viewers than among online podcast viewers, but the differences were not statistically significant.

A comparison of online podcast viewers with talk attendees followed the trend of the previous two analyses, where live talks elicited stronger responses than all podcasts. Differences were statistically significant for five indicators: desire to help and quiz score (p ≤ .05), inclination to smile, intent to change behavior, and intent to tell others what was learned (all p ≤ .01). This is the only test that yielded a statistically significant difference for the knowledge score and intent to tell.

We found only small differences among responses to the eight program topics, with one exception. Recognition of the Ancestral Puebloans program theme and its knowledge score were significantly lower than those of other podcasts, whether viewed online or at the VC (p ≤ .01). The sample size of four program topics of VC podcasts (biological soil crust, rock art, potholes, and Utah juniper) was too small for statistical analysis (see Table 1).

Table 6 shows the reported motivations for viewing the interpretive program by test group. Nearly all talk attendees (94.4%) said they were motivated to watch “to learn


Table 6. Motivations for viewing interpretive program

Motivation Online

Podcast

VC

Podcast

Ranger

Talk Total

To learn something 146 68.5% 45 76.3% 101 94.4% 77%

To have fun 60 28.2% 17 28.8% 49 45.8% 33.2%

Interested in topic 112 52.6% 36 61.0% 55 51.4% 53.6%

To plan visit 81 38.0% 6 10.2% 32 29.9% 31.4%

To see pictures 130 61.0% 33 55.9% 44 41.1% 54.6%

Enjoyed similar program before 67 31.5% 11 18.6% 28 26.2% 28%

To share experience with family 36 16.9% 8 13.6% 35 32.7% 20.8%

No reason 9 4.2% 5 8.5% 5 4.7% 5%

a Percentages do not sum to 100% because visitors could select more than one motivation.

Table 7. Women’s responses to effectiveness indicators, VC podcast vs. ranger talk

Response Indicator

Mean Responses Analysis

VC

Podcast

(n=30)

Ranger

Talk

(n=52)

Mann-

Whitney

U

Z p

valuea

emo

tio

nal

ENJOYMENT 4.50 4.88 555.0 -3.016 .003

SMILE 3.77 4.85 215.5 -6.072 .000

PERSONAL RELAVANCE 3.27 3.81 480.0 -3.095 .002

RESPONSE TO THEME 4.73 4.73 718.5 -.805 .421

inte

llec

tual

INTEREST 4.57 4.85 569.5 -2.768 .006

CURIOSITY 4.03 4.10 697.0 -.884 .377

KNOWLEDGE SCORE .8944 .9080 756.5 -.103 .918

stew

ard

ship

GLADNESS PARK IS

PROTECTED 4.67 4.92 628.0 -2.386 .017

DESIRE TO HELP 4.47 4.85 529.5 -3.281 .001

INTENT TO CHANGE

BEHAVIOR 3.53 4.17 454.0 -3.315 .001

INTENT TO TELL OTHERS 4.43 4.42 756.0 -.260 .795



v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 17

something,” and this reason ranked most popular across all three groups (77%). A much higher percentage of talk attendees rated “to have fun” and “to share an experience with my family” as motives than did all podcast watchers (45.8% and 32.7% vs. 28% and 15%, respectively). About 26% of ranger talk participants claimed that having enjoyed a similar program in the past motivated them to join this one. An even greater proportion of online viewers (31.5%) selected this motive, although online podcasts are not yet common on park websites. Online viewers selected “to plan” and “to see pictures” more frequently than either of the test groups of park visitors.

For ten of the eleven indicators, women’s mean scores were higher than men’s. (knowledge score was the exception.) Differences in the genders’ level of enjoyment, interest, smiles, desire to help, and intent to tell others about the program were statistically significant (p ≤ .05), with women having stronger responses in nearly all categories. Male online podcast viewers scored higher than their female counterparts on the knowledge score but the difference was not significant. Among VC podcast viewers, women showed a significantly higher intention to tell others what they had learned (p ≤ .01); no other indicators showed significant gender differences within this test group. Ranger talk attendees showed three significant gender differences: Women had greater intent to tell others (p ≤ .05), more smiles, and greater desire to help (p ≤ .01). Male attendees to ranger talks had significantly more smiles (p ≤ .01) and higher knowledge scores (p ≤ .05) than



Motivation Online

Podcast

VC

Podcast

Ranger

Talk Total


To have fun 60 28.2% 17 28.8% 49 45.8% 33.2%


To plan visit 81 38.0% 6 10.2% 32 29.9% 31.4%

To see pictures 130 61.0% 33 55.9% 44 41.1% 54.6%



No reason 9 4.2% 5 8.5% 5 4.7% 5%



Response Indicator


VC

Podcast

(n=30)

Ranger

Talk

(n=52)

Mann-

Whitney

U

Z p

valuea

emo

tio

nal

ENJOYMENT 4.50 4.88 555.0 -3.016 .003

SMILE 3.77 4.85 215.5 -6.072 .000



inte

llec

tual

INTEREST 4.57 4.85 569.5 -2.768 .006

CURIOSITY 4.03 4.10 697.0 -.884 .377

KNOWLEDGE SCORE .8944 .9080 756.5 -.103 .918

stew

ard

ship

GLADNESS PARK IS

PROTECTED 4.67 4.92 628.0 -2.386 .017

DESIRE TO HELP 4.47 4.85 529.5 -3.281 .001

INTENT TO CHANGE

BEHAVIOR 3.53 4.17 454.0 -3.315 .001





Motivation Online

Podcast

VC

Podcast

Ranger

Talk Total


To have fun 60 28.2% 17 28.8% 49 45.8% 33.2%


To plan visit 81 38.0% 6 10.2% 32 29.9% 31.4%

To see pictures 130 61.0% 33 55.9% 44 41.1% 54.6%



No reason 9 4.2% 5 8.5% 5 4.7% 5%



Response Indicator


VC

Podcast

(n=30)

Ranger

Talk

(n=52)

Mann-

Whitney

U

Z p

valuea

emo

tio

nal

ENJOYMENT 4.50 4.88 555.0 -3.016 .003

SMILE 3.77 4.85 215.5 -6.072 .000



inte

llec

tual

INTEREST 4.57 4.85 569.5 -2.768 .006

CURIOSITY 4.03 4.10 697.0 -.884 .377

KNOWLEDGE SCORE .8944 .9080 756.5 -.103 .918

stew

ard

ship

GLADNESS PARK IS

PROTECTED 4.67 4.92 628.0 -2.386 .017

DESIRE TO HELP 4.47 4.85 529.5 -3.281 .001

INTENT TO CHANGE

BEHAVIOR 3.53 4.17 454.0 -3.315 .001





men in either podcast group. Men who watched a VC podcast reported significantly lower interest levels than men who watched an online podcast or live talk (p ≤ .05). Women recorded significantly stronger enjoyment, interest, personal relevance, smiles, desire to help, and intent to change behavior (p ≤ .01) and desire to help (p ≤ .05) during ranger talks than while watching a podcast in the visitor center (see Table 7).

The formal education level of survey participants was higher than national averages. A majority of survey participants (70%) reported at least a bachelor’s degree. No online participants reported less than a high school diploma. Children constituted approximately 20% of live audiences (as observed by the researcher) but contributed few completed surveys. There were no statistically significant relationships between level of formal education and the indicators of program effectiveness by program format. Statistical analysis of ethnicity data was not possible due to underrepresentation in all categories other than “white.”

DiscussionThe majority of participants in all three test groups reported emotional, intellectual, and stewardship connections from the interpretive programs they watched, and particularly strong agreement with the statement, “Watching this program made me glad this place is protected.” However, without a repeated measures research design, the inclusion of a pre-test, or stronger controls on subject selection and assignment to the test groups, one cannot determine if participants’ factual knowledge and stewardship feelings were caused by the different interpretive treatments or merely reflected preexisting conditions. The other indicators of intellectual connection (interest and curiosity) and all indicators of emotional connection that we measured (smiles, enjoyment, feelings of personal relevance, and response to theme) can be viewed as prima facie indicators of the treatment programs’ interpretive effectiveness. For the intellectual and emotional connection indicators, our results indicate that online podcasts, VC podcasts, and short ranger talks are all effective tools for interpretation.

Our overall results suggest that online podcasts are slightly less effective interpretive tools than traditional ranger talks, but more effective than VC podcast viewing workstations. However, it seems that online podcasts are nearly as effective as traditional programs for forging some intellectual and emotional connections, while traditional ranger talks are best at fostering stewardship. The fact that online podcast viewers reported the highest mean scores for curiosity and feelings of personal relevance out of all study participants is particularly intriguing. Online audiences’ ability to control topic and timing of their interpretive experience (by choosing to click the play button) may powerfully influence their satisfaction and said programs’ effectiveness. VC podcast viewers had similar control over topic but less control over timing, which may have influenced their statistically weaker scores. Further research using stronger research controls should be undertaken to confirm these initial findings.

The comparatively stronger responses of ranger talk audiences over other test groups is consistent with findings of the ongoing Visitor Voices project (initial report published as Coble et al., 2005), which found that ranger talk attendees are more likely to report both intellectual and emotional connections (and less likely to report neither) than consumers of other types of impersonal interpretive contact (such as signage, brochures, and exhibits).

We were particularly not surprised that talk audiences’ inclination to smile ranked


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 19

significantly higher than that of video audiences. It is intuitive that physical displays of emotion would be strongest when participants are in the presence of a social group, as opposed to when viewing a podcast in isolation. The fact that knowledge scores also ranked significantly higher for ranger talk attendees might be due to the compounding influence of other interpretive messages park visitors encounter, from exhibits to other conversations with rangers.

When both in-park test groups (talk and VC podcast) were combined for analysis, their responses were stronger than those of online podcast viewers on three of the four emotional indicators, the knowledge score, and two stewardship indicators. This pattern would suggest that being in a park heightens visitors’ sensitivity to the emotional and stewardship elements of interpretive content. However, once the influence of personal contact with a ranger was removed, the trend reversed. Remote podcast viewers responded more strongly than VC podcast viewers to all indicators except knowledge score. In fact, VC podcast viewers’ responses to nearly all of the eleven indicators were the weakest and the most variable of all three test groups. We identified several potentially disruptive influences on these participants: (1) the surrounding bustle and noise of a busy visitor center may have distracted them, (2) the allure of more genuine park experiences awaiting them after the survey’s completion may have rushed them, or (3) interruption of the streaming videos caused by unstable internet service at the VC may have frustrated some viewers. Further study of VC podcast viewing stations should attempt to control for these extraneous factors by providing private viewing areas and dedicated internet connections. Our results underscore our earlier hypothesis that the podcast viewing station located inside a park visitor center would be a less effective interpretive tool than either ranger talks or an interpretive podcast viewed remotely.

The only slight variations seen among responses to the eight different program topics correlates with a high degree of consistency in our treatment findings. We were not surprised to see fewer differences among podcast viewers’ reactions, given the pre-recorded (and, therefore, identical) nature of the programs they watched. The fact that both VC and online podcast audiences had difficulty in identifying the Ancestral Puebloan program’s theme suggests a need to revise that program’s content.

Talk audiences’ reactions differed more among program topics than did video viewers, for which we’ve identified an array of possible causes. Despite the presenter’s best intentions, it is possible that unequal emphasis on key facts in some presentations led to inconsistent or low knowledge scores for those particular audiences. Also, a variety of interruptions (including audience member questions, late arriving visitors, and wildlife sightings) may have distracted viewers during key moments of some presentations. Some viewers remarked that the presenter delivered a very animated performance of the cowboys and potholes programs while the geology and rock art presentations were less gestural, which may have precipitated the gap in “enjoyment” and “smiles” scores for those topics. Future studies could try to control these confounding influences by locating the talks indoors, asking participants to hold all questions to the end, and even more strictly adhering to the podcast scripts.

We were not surprised to find that programs about non-living and/or ancient subjects (i.e., geology, Ancestral Puebloans, rock art) elicited weaker emotional responses than programs about living subjects (i.e., cowboys, bighorn sheep.) This pattern speaks to the challenge of forging visitor’s emotional connections with non-living park resources, on which many interpretive theorists have commented (Beck & Cable, 2002; Larsen, 2003).



Varying scores for stewardship among different topics might be related to several factors. The programs about potholes and biological soil crust contained easily recognizable and immediately applicable conservation messages. All Canyonlands visitors see examples of both phenomena during their visit, and are told (through signage and verbally) that their behavior directly impacts the survival of organisms residing therein. Furthermore, very few visitors are familiar with these unique desert phenomena and so messages about their conservation are new and striking. It follows that programs about these two resources would elicit strong stewardship responses. Conversely, the conservation message within the cowboy and rock art programs—namely, please do not touch or take any artifacts—is one most visitors have heard many times before and might find uninteresting, while the Utah juniper and geology programs contained no conservation messages at all. Relatively weak stewardship scores for those programs were consistent with the weak program content.

It is striking that nearly all survey respondents said they were motivated to participate “to learn something,” and that this reason ranked highest across all three test groups. These results affirm others’ findings that ranger programs of any format are seen by their audiences as valid sources of information (Absher & Graefe, 1997). Prior research at Canyonlands has also shown well over 50% of the park’s visitors view educational opportunities as “extremely important” to their visit (Littlejohn et al., 1990). In our study, both podcasts and ranger talks were highly valued by audiences for their educational merit.

While their educational value appears comparable, podcasts and live talks were given very different experiential values by their audiences. A much higher percentage of ranger talk attendees rated “to have fun” and “to share an experience w/ my family” as motives than did podcast watchers. In other words, watching a video was considered less of a fun-generating experience than joining the live performance. Cognitive psychology has shown that interactive/experiential encounters are more likely to generate lasting memories than are simple perceptual/information-gathering events (Card, Moran, & Newell, 1984, as referenced in Alter & Ward, 1994). It would be interesting to examine whether live program and podcast audiences demonstrate different long-term retention of interpretive program content.

We found that only around 25% of talk attendees claimed that enjoying a similar program in the past motivated them to watch one of our interpretive programs. This seems to contradict the widely held belief among interpreters that talk audiences consist of “the faithful” who seek out interpretive programs at every park they visit. A higher proportion of online podcast viewers selected this motive (closer to 33%), despite the fact that podcasts are not yet common on park websites. This result suggests at least two possible explanations: (1) viewers may have been referring to prior exposure to any type of video interpretive program (or even nature TV shows), or (2) podcasts attract their own faithful viewers who seek out this new experience wherever available. Future studies should employ more precise phrasing in their surveys to clearly differentiate participants’ prior experience with new interpretive media.

Our gender-correlated differences among ranger talk participants mirror those seen in previous research. The Visitor Voices Project (Coble et al., 2005; Coble, 2008) also found that men were less likely than women to form both intellectual and emotional connections from interpretive presentations, while women were more likely to form both. It was beyond the scope of this study to investigate the cause of this difference;


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 21

many aspects of a live presentation might subtly encourage this imbalance, including differential rates of eye contact, reaction to tone, or presenter bias in soliciting audience participation. Women’s responses follow the overall findings (such that female ranger talk attendees responded significantly more strongly to most indicators than their gender cohorts in the two podcast groups), whereas men’s scores were not as significantly different. The researchers lack sufficient background in gender studies to propose causation, but would be interested to see the results of future studies along these lines.

Other demographic data that was collected also validates what has been shown in prior studies of NPS visitors: Participants in this study (both online and in-park) were overwhelmingly white and college educated. This correlates with the findings of the Visitor Studies Project, which has shown a similar majority of park visitors are white/not Hispanic (92% at nearby Zion per Le et al., 2007) and college educated (25% graduate degree, 30% bachelor’s degree, 24% some college per Littlejohn, Meldrum, & Hollenhurst, 2006). The Visitor Voices study (Coble et al., 2005; Coble, 2008) did not find that either ethnicity or education level were significantly related to visitors’ propensity to form intellectual or emotional connections, so we do not consider an inability to statistically analyze this data (due to small sample size of non-white, non-college-educated participants) as a significant qualifier of our results. The NPS mandate to expand park sites’ relevance to all citizens will undoubtedly foster future research into the demographics of online park audiences as well as the effectiveness of targeted online content.

The fact that no online podcast viewers reported less than a high-school education means that no school-age children submitted surveys from that test group. We know from personal communication with visitors that the Inside Canyonlands podcasts have been viewed in classrooms and by home-schooled families, which means that our test group was not a truly representative sample of the actual website audience. Future studies of online interpretive audiences should develop a more targeted approach to ensure inclusion of this important visitor demographic.

Conclusion and RecommendationsThese findings show that online interpretive programs are practically as effective a means of fostering viewers’ connections to park resources as traditional ranger programs. This new media format might be a very wise investment for parks with low visitation due to remoteness and/or lack of public awareness, for it generates similar intellectual, emotional, and stewardship connections to the resource despite the lack of actual visitation. Other parks may view online and in-person ranger talks as complementary options within an interpretive plan. Exhibit planners considering the installation of a podcast viewing station at a visitor center might ponder whether investing, instead, in boosting the park’s online presence would better enhance visitor impacts.

New media interpretation is a recent arrival to the discipline’s toolkit, and the potential for future research is vast. Many advocates of increasing the NPS’s online presence specifically hope to reach young audiences; a targeted study might examine children’s intellectual, emotional, and stewardship responses to podcasts within the context of both educational and home/leisure settings. Parks would benefit from learning how much their online audiences overlap with traditional interpretive audiences (demographically and in regard to visitation patterns) so as to develop more effective and better-tailored online interpretive content. To expand our examination of viewing location’s influence, a future study should compare park visitors who watch downloaded



“Ranger Minutes” podcasts while experiencing a park’s overlooks or trails with those who view them online and in the visitor center. Finally, we hope this study will be replicated at other parks with similar online interpretive offerings to increase its external validity.

ReferenceAbsher, J. D., & Graefe, A. R. (1997). Trip motives of interpretive program attendees and

nonattendees. Journal of Interpretation Research, 2(1), 55-56.

Alter, P., & Ward, R. (1994). Exhibit evaluation: Taking account of human factors. In Hooper-Greenhill, E. (Ed.), The educational role of the museum (p. 204-212). London: Routledge.

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

Beckmann, E. A. (1999). Evaluating visitors’ reactions to interpretation in Australian National Parks. Journal of Interpretation Research, 4(1), 5-19.

Canyonlands National Park. (2009). Park statistics. Retrieved March 28, 2011 from http://www.nps.gov/cany/parkmgmt/statistics.htm.

Cicero, M.T. (1913). The treatise of M.T. Cicero on the best style of orators. Orations, vol. 4 (C.D. Yonge, Trans.) (Original work published 55 B.C.) Retrieved March 28, 2011 from http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=734&layout=htm

Coble, T., Lin, H. S., Coble, D.W., Hart, J.L., Williams, P.S., & Darville, R. (2005). Visitor Voices Project 2005: Final report. Retrieved March 28, 2011 from http://www.wnpa.org/research/lyjo05-15yr2.pdf.

Coble, T. (2008) Visitor voices: Assessing interpretive outcomes in the Intermountain Region of the National Parks. Ongoing research project, Stephen F. Austin State University. Retrieved March 28, 2011 from http://www.reeis.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/199397.html.

Dornan, E. (2003). MeaningMakers.org literature review: Effects of multimedia interpretation on visitor experience. Retrieved March 28, 2011 from http://queenellen.com/pdf/LitReview.pdf.

Foresee Results. (2008). NPS satisfaction survey April 1, 2008 – April 30, 2008. Retrieved March 28, 2011 from https://ea.nps.gov/WhaleComFAD30877CCF6350A6864049C79272096CBA4E8C0E1/WhaleCom0/documents/aggregate_report_200804.xls (restricted access.)

Ham, S. H. (1992). Environmental Interpretation: A practical guide for people with big ideas and small budgets. Golden, CO: North American Press.

Ham, S. H., & Weiler, B. (2006). Development of a research-based tool for evaluating interpretation. Queensland, Australia: Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre.

Ham, S. H., & Weiler, B. (2007). Isolating the role of on-site interpretation in a satisfying experience. Journal of Interpretation Research, 12(2), 5-24.


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 23

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

Larsen, D. L. (Ed). (2003). Meaningful interpretation: How to connect hearts and minds to places, objects, and other resources. Ft. Washington, PA: Eastern National.

Le, L., Evans, J., Vander-Stoep, G. A., & Hollenhurst, S.J. (2007). Visitor services project: Zion National Park. University of Idaho: Cooperative Park Studies Unit.

Littlejohn, M., Meldrum, M., Hollenhurst, S.J. (1990). Visitor services project: Canyonlands National Park. University of Idaho: Cooperative Park Studies Unit.

Littlejohn, M., Meldrum, M., Hollenhurst, S.J. (2006). Visitor services project: Yosemite National Park. University of Idaho: Cooperative Park Studies Unit.

Machlis, G. E. (Ed.). (1986). Interpretive views: Opinions on evaluating interpretation in the National Park Service. Washington, D.C.: National Parks and Conservation Association.

Meldrum, B. H., Littlejohn, M. A., & Hollenhorst, S. J. (2004). Arches National Park: Visitor study (Spring 2003). University of Idaho: Cooperative Park Studies Unit.

Miles, R.S., Alt, M. B., Gosling, D.C., Lewis, A.F., & Tout, A.F. (1982). The design of educational exhibits. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Miller, J. S., & Farrell, K. (2006). Interpretation on the web. Legacy, 17(5), 26-31.

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

Neuman, W. Lawrence (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th ed.). Toronto: Allyn & Bacon.

Novey, L. T., & Hall, T. E. (2006). The effect of audio tours on learning and social interaction: An evaluation at Carlsbad Caverns National Park. Science Education, 91, 260-277.

Pew Research Center (2010). Demographics of internet users. Retrieved March 28, 2011 from http://www.pewinternet.org/Static-Pages/Trend-Data/Whos-Online.aspx.

Randall, J. (2008). Top ten travel and tourism trends for 2007-2008. Retrieved March 28, 2011 from http://www.rtmnet.com/Portals/1/2007%20and%202008%20Top%20Ten%20Trends%20-%20July%202007.pdf

Schaller, D. T., Allison-Bunnell, S., Borun, M., & Chambers, M. B. (2003). How do you like to learn? Comparing user preferences and visit length of educational websites. Presented at Museums on the Web 2002. Retrieved March 28, 2011 from http://www.archimuse.com/mw2002/papers/schaller/schaller.html

Tubbs, 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), 476-498.

USDI NPS. (2003). Renewing our education mission: Report to the National Leadership Council, June 2003. Unpublished report, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.


A Descriptive Study of Guided Tours at Mammoth Cave National Park

Mark Morgan, Ph.D.Department of Parks, Recreation, and TourismUniversity of MissouriColumbia, MO 65211(573) [email protected]

Cara Walker, M.S.Department of Kinesiology, Recreation & Sport StudiesCoastal Carolina UniversityConway, SC 29528

AbstractFor most visitors, guided tours are the only way to experience a cave. Since few studies have been conducted in these settings, there is no explanation for a recent decline in attendance at many well-known caves and caverns across the United States. A mail-back survey was administered to 660 visitors at Mammoth Cave National Park to learn more about the social aspects of visitation, focusing on those who took at least one guided tour. Results showed a low level of crowding, along with high approvals and value for the fee paid. Some possible strategies were mentioned to reverse the decline in cave tour attendance.

Keywordscaves, crowding, guided tours, interpretation, Mammoth Cave National Park

IntroductionKarst topography results from dissolution and movement of mildly acidic water through dolomite or limestone deposits over time. This landscape is distributed world-wide and is characterized by geographic features such as caves, fissures, and sinkholes. Although there are over 45,000 caves in the United States, the greatest concentration is found in Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, and Arkansas (Culver, Hobbs, Christman, & Master, 1999). See Figure 1.


13

Figure 1. The number and relative distribution of caves in the U.S. (Culver et al., 1999).

Figure 1. The number and relative distribution of caves in the U.S. (Culver et al., 1999).

14

Table 1. Visitors at other NPS cave sites from 1996-2005.*

NPS Site 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Carlsbad Caverns 557,217 540,797 522,076 514,418 469,303

Jewel Cave 144,634 133,115 131,058 134,834 128,960

Oregon Caves 98,383 84,500 86,476 91,129 89,230

Russell Cave 26,881 27,380 26,353 27,289 23,465

Timpanogos Cave 97,250 112,777 119,074 122,778 115,115

Wind Cave 781,171 832,033 849,974 761,717 668,507

Total 2,185,713 2,197,841 2,187,618 2,091,760 1,913,887

NPS Site 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 % change

Carlsbad Caverns 455,621 476,259 457,631 419,599 413,786 -25.74

Jewel Cave 125,330 131,215 126,363 108,948 102,318 -29.26

Oregon Caves 87,175 84,520 94,745 83,701 83,811 -14.81

Russell Cave 20,449 27,912 22,892 22,350 23,496 -00.13

Timpanogos Cave 126,270 114,736 106,030 107,170 104,517 06.95

Wind Cave 650,357 810,298 874,167 593,877 612,478 -21.59

Total 1,872,490 2,046,962 2,061,473 1,708,027 1,687,763 -22.78

________________________________________________________________________

*available from the National Park Service Public Use Statistics Office

http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/

Table 2. The relationship between park visitation and tour attendance at Mammoth Cave

National Park from 1996-2005.

Year Park

Visitation

Tour

Attendance

Tour Attendance /

Park Visitation

1996 1,989,082 480,177 24.1

1997 2,089,911 467,239 22.4

1998 2,206,245 452,607 20.5

1999 1,803,236 439,595 24.4

2000 1,881,521 419,307 22.3

2001 1,975,833 407,288 20.6

2002 1,983,599 402,022 20.3

2003 1,961,388 379,645 19.4

2004 1,980,518 372,382 18.8

2005 1,970,258 347,357 17.6

Table 1. Visitors at selected NPS cave sites from 1996-2005.*

m a r k m o r g a n, c a r a wa l k e r

v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 27

The National Park Service (NPS) owns nearly 4,000 caves on 81 of its sites (NPS, 2011a), but relatively few of them are managed as tourism attractions due to inaccessibility, fragile resource conditions, or potential liability issues. Only seven NPS sites feature caves or caverns in their title (Carlsbad Caverns NP, Jewel Cave NM, Mammoth Cave NP, Oregon Caves NM, Russell Cave NM, Timpanogos Cave NM, and Wind Cave NP). Guided tours provide visitors an opportunity to learn about the geology and social history of caves (Gillieson, 1996). Visitation is also needed to generate some revenue, whether the caves are managed by the public or private sector (Cigna & Burri, 2000).

About 350,000 visitors take at least one cave tour during their visit to Mammoth Cave National Park (MCNP) per year. Tickets for the tours can be purchased in advance or at the visitor center after arrival (fees vary). Guided cave tours typically include interpretation of geology, wildlife, culture, history, and human-induced impacts along pre-established routes. Tour options change periodically, depending upon public demand and staffing requirements.

Need for StudySix of the aforementioned NPS caves across the United States reported a drop in visitation during 1996–2005 (overall decrease of 22.8%). See Table 1. Although visitation at MCNP remained relatively constant during this same decade, there was a steady decline (27.7%) in cave tour attendance (480,177 vs. 347,357, respectively). See Table 2. This decrease was the primary reason for conducting a visitor study. Since guided cave tours are the mainstay of interpretation and revenue, park managers wanted to learn more about this issue. What is the expectation for crowdedness on cave tours? Are the tours too crowded for visitor enjoyment? What is the value for the fee paid? Would visitors recommend the tours to others? Each of these questions has some important implications at MCNP and may be of interest to managers at other NPS cave sites.

Literature ReviewAlthough many aspects of crowding have been addressed in outdoor settings, quality of experiences, as measured by satisfaction, is a focal point in the literature (Manning, 2011).

14

Table 1. Visitors at other NPS cave sites from 1996-2005.*

NPS Site 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Carlsbad Caverns 557,217 540,797 522,076 514,418 469,303

Jewel Cave 144,634 133,115 131,058 134,834 128,960

Oregon Caves 98,383 84,500 86,476 91,129 89,230

Russell Cave 26,881 27,380 26,353 27,289 23,465

Timpanogos Cave 97,250 112,777 119,074 122,778 115,115

Wind Cave 781,171 832,033 849,974 761,717 668,507

Total 2,185,713 2,197,841 2,187,618 2,091,760 1,913,887

NPS Site 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 % change

Carlsbad Caverns 455,621 476,259 457,631 419,599 413,786 -25.74

Jewel Cave 125,330 131,215 126,363 108,948 102,318 -29.26

Oregon Caves 87,175 84,520 94,745 83,701 83,811 -14.81

Russell Cave 20,449 27,912 22,892 22,350 23,496 -00.13

Timpanogos Cave 126,270 114,736 106,030 107,170 104,517 06.95

Wind Cave 650,357 810,298 874,167 593,877 612,478 -21.59

Total 1,872,490 2,046,962 2,061,473 1,708,027 1,687,763 -22.78

________________________________________________________________________

*available from the National Park Service Public Use Statistics Office

http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/

Table 2. The relationship between park visitation and tour attendance at Mammoth Cave

National Park from 1996-2005.

Year Park

Visitation

Tour

Attendance

Tour Attendance /

Park Visitation

1996 1,989,082 480,177 24.1

1997 2,089,911 467,239 22.4

1998 2,206,245 452,607 20.5

1999 1,803,236 439,595 24.4

2000 1,881,521 419,307 22.3

2001 1,975,833 407,288 20.6

2002 1,983,599 402,022 20.3

2003 1,961,388 379,645 19.4

2004 1,980,518 372,382 18.8

2005 1,970,258 347,357 17.6

Table 2. The relationship between park visitation and tour attendance at Mammoth Cave National Park from 1996–2005.

g u i d e d t o u r s at m a m m o t h c av e n at i o n a l pa r k


Visitor satisfaction can be defined as the consistency between expectations and outcomes (Bultena & Klessig, 1969). Managers try to provide opportunities that are consistent with the experiences typically sought by recreationists (Tian-Cole, Crompton, & Willson, 2002). However, researchers quickly found that defining and measuring satisfaction was not as easy as anticipated (Dorfman, 1979; La Page, 1983; Noe, 1987). Feedback mechanisms play an important role in this process, yet no standard scale has been developed. Measuring satisfaction relies on indicators, often matched with a specific site, user group, or activity, thus adding its complexity.

There is a notion, dating from the 1960s, that some social values (e.g., satisfaction) will be lost when too many people occupy the same area (Wagar, 1964). Consequently, a variety of control mechanisms have been used by managers to prevent this situation from occurring. In the literature, the inverse relationship between use level and quality of experience is known as the satisfaction model (Heberlein & Shelby, 1977). Although intuitively appealing, this framework has shown to be a poor predictor of visitor behavior across many outdoor settings (Manning & Ciali, 1980).

Some early clarifications of the satisfaction model addressed terminology: use level is the number of people per unit space (density), whereas crowding is a negative evaluation of use level (Stokols, 1972). Later studies investigated coping strategies that are used by some visitors to avoid reporting dissatisfaction. Coping is a way for people to manage stressful situations, thus enabling them to participate in leisure activities, despite not being completely satisfied with their experience (Schneider & Stanis, 2007). Understanding the ways in which people cope with unfavorable situations during leisure can provide some useful insights for park managers (Miller & McCool, 2003).

Displacement is one coping strategy used by some visitors. When faced with the possibility of conditions such as crowding, visitors often switch their recreational activities, locations, or times to avoid the situation altogether (Anderson & Brown, 1984). It is fairly common for visitors to report high levels of satisfaction during leisure participation, partly due to a homogeneous population that is not overly sensitive to crowding. This was the case at Glowworm cave in New Zealand. Doorne (2000) reported that international travelers were satisfied with their experience at the expense of many domestic tourists who had been displaced in the process.

Another possible explanation for high levels of satisfaction is rationalization. Participation in outdoor recreation is a voluntary behavior, sometimes involving a substantial investment of time, effort, and money. Rationalization suggests that some people may rate their outdoor recreation experience as satisfactory, despite the actual conditions being less than ideal (Manning & Valliere, 2001). The thought of admitting dissatisfaction may prompt some visitors to search for ways to reduce internal conflict.

Product shift offers a third explanation for coping behavior. Generally speaking, this idea implies that visitors who are exposed to higher use levels than what they expected sometimes changed their definition of crowding to be consistent with the conditions that were experienced (Stankey & McCool, 1984; Hendee, Stankey, & Lucas, 1990). Shelby, Bregenzer, and Johnson (1988) found some inconsistencies in how visitors perceived the wilderness character of a river in Oregon across time, which suggests that a product shift occurred.

In addition to coping strategies, Manning (1985) suggests there are normative definitions of crowding, such as personal characteristics, characteristics of others encountered, and situational variables that arise from visitor judgments about use levels.


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 29

These factors are important, but not perceived as negative until they interfere with the values or goals of visitors.

Methods

Study Site Mammoth Cave National Park is a World Heritage Site and International Biosphere Reserve that spans 52,830 acres in the rolling hills of south-central Kentucky. It contains a significant portion of the longest cave system in the world, with over 390 miles of known passageways (NPS, 2011b). MCNP receives about 500,000 annual visitors (the counting procedure was changed in 2006).

Sampling Locations and Selection of ParticipantsThe Visitor Services Project (VSP) is a partnership between the NPS and the College of Natural Resources at the University of Idaho. The VSP has surveyed visitors at national park sites since 1979 and has published over 240 technical reports during that time period. The visitor study at MCNP (Swayne, Littlejohn, Morgan, & Hollenhorst, 2007) was based on that protocol.

When the survey was being conducted, most visitors arrived at MCNP by automobile using the east or south gates from Interstate Highway 65. Once inside the park, individuals tended to congregate at the visitor center since it was close to the hotel and natural cave entrance. Furthermore, it was the place where all tours departed—some by foot, others by bus. For this reason, over one half of the questionnaires were distributed at the visitor center. However, five additional locations (Lodge, Green River ferry, Sand Cave entrance, Sloan’s Pond, and campgrounds) were selected to ensure a reasonable cross-section of visitors in the sample.

A random sampling procedure was used to collect data from visitors over seven consecutive days during July, 2006. After the initial approach, visitor groups were informed of the study and one individual from each group was asked if he or she would like to participate. Consenting adults (16 and older) were asked to provide their contact information and given a questionnaire for completion after the trip. The mail-back survey was pre-addressed and postage-paid. It took about 20 to 25 minutes to answer the questions. After one postcard reminder and three follow-ups to non-respondents, the study yielded a response rate of 65.9% (435 out of 660). The Tailored Design Method (Dillman, 2007) was used throughout the study. A non-response bias check was performed, yielding no significant differences on selected variables.

Questionnaire The survey instrument consisted of 27 items, including both open- and closed-ended response formats. Some questions addressed activity selection, reasons for participation, assessment of facilities and services, and demographics. One portion of the survey focused on guided tours and asked respondents to answer each of the following questions: How crowded was your tour? (1=less than expected to 3=more than expected); Was your tour too crowded to be enjoyable? (yes or no); Would you recommend it to others? (yes or no); and, What was the value for fee paid? (1=very poor to 5=very good).



Table 3. Carrying capacity and crowdedness of cave tours.

8


TRIP

CAPACITY

CROWDEDNESS

EXPECTATION?

TOO CROWDED

TO ENJOY?

Cave Tour n n Less Same More n No

Focus on Mammoth 14 2 50% 50% 0% 2 100%

Frozen Niagara 118 149 7% 66% 27% 154 82%

Great Onyx Lantern 38 30 13% 80% 7% 32 100%

Historic 120 137 7% 59% 34% 144 76%

Introduction to Caving 20 15 0% 100% 0% 15 93%

Ranger-led Discovery 40 56 20% 68% 13% 59 92%

River Styx 60 36 6% 75% 19% 34 91%

Self-Guided Discovery No limit 21 24% 76% 0% 24 96%

Star Chamber 40 14 14% 79% 7% 14 100%

Travertine 39 40 18% 80% 3% 42 98%

Trog 12 11 9% 91% 0% 11 100%

Violet City Lantern 38 29 3% 86% 10% 32 94%

TOTAL 45 14.2% 75.8% 10.0% 47 93.5%

Table 4. Value for fee paid and recommendations.

(VP = Vey Poor; P=Poor; A=Average; G=Good; VG=Very Good)

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

RECOMMEND

TO OTHERS?

Cave Tour n M SD VP P A G VG n Yes

Focus on Mammoth 2 4.00 0.000 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 2 100%

Frozen Niagara 152 4.05 0.796 0% 1% 25% 41% 33% 155 94%

Great Onyx Lantern 33 4.15 0.834 0% 3% 18% 39% 39% 32 97%

Historic 142 4.06 0.779 1% 1% 19% 49% 30% 143 97%

Introduction to Caving 16 3.94 0.772 0% 0% 31% 44% 25% 15 93%

Ranger-led Discovery 53 4.02 0.866 2% 0% 25% 42% 32% 57 93%

River Styx 36 4.25 0.732 0% 0% 17% 42% 42% 34 100%

Self-Guided Discovery 29 3.86 0.990 3% 3% 24% 41% 28% 24 96%

Star Chamber 13 3.77 1.166 8% 0% 31% 31% 31% 14 93%

Travertine 40 3.93 1.071 0% 15% 15% 33% 38% 40 95%

Trog 10 4.60 0.699 0% 0% 10% 20% 70% 10 100%

Violet City Lantern 29 4.07 0.923 0% 7% 17% 38% 38% 32 88%

TOTAL 46 4.01 0.802 1.2% 2.5% 19.3% 43.3% 33.8% 47 95.5%


8


TRIP

CAPACITY

CROWDEDNESS

EXPECTATION?

TOO CROWDED

TO ENJOY?

Cave Tour n n Less Same More n No

Focus on Mammoth 14 2 50% 50% 0% 2 100%

Frozen Niagara 118 149 7% 66% 27% 154 82%

Great Onyx Lantern 38 30 13% 80% 7% 32 100%

Historic 120 137 7% 59% 34% 144 76%

Introduction to Caving 20 15 0% 100% 0% 15 93%

Ranger-led Discovery 40 56 20% 68% 13% 59 92%

River Styx 60 36 6% 75% 19% 34 91%

Self-Guided Discovery No limit 21 24% 76% 0% 24 96%

Star Chamber 40 14 14% 79% 7% 14 100%

Travertine 39 40 18% 80% 3% 42 98%

Trog 12 11 9% 91% 0% 11 100%

Violet City Lantern 38 29 3% 86% 10% 32 94%

TOTAL 45 14.2% 75.8% 10.0% 47 93.5%


(VP = Vey Poor; P=Poor; A=Average; G=Good; VG=Very Good)

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

RECOMMEND

TO OTHERS?

Cave Tour n M SD VP P A G VG n Yes

Focus on Mammoth 2 4.00 0.000 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 2 100%

Frozen Niagara 152 4.05 0.796 0% 1% 25% 41% 33% 155 94%

Great Onyx Lantern 33 4.15 0.834 0% 3% 18% 39% 39% 32 97%

Historic 142 4.06 0.779 1% 1% 19% 49% 30% 143 97%

Introduction to Caving 16 3.94 0.772 0% 0% 31% 44% 25% 15 93%

Ranger-led Discovery 53 4.02 0.866 2% 0% 25% 42% 32% 57 93%

River Styx 36 4.25 0.732 0% 0% 17% 42% 42% 34 100%

Self-Guided Discovery 29 3.86 0.990 3% 3% 24% 41% 28% 24 96%

Star Chamber 13 3.77 1.166 8% 0% 31% 31% 31% 14 93%

Travertine 40 3.93 1.071 0% 15% 15% 33% 38% 40 95%

Trog 10 4.60 0.699 0% 0% 10% 20% 70% 10 100%

Violet City Lantern 29 4.07 0.923 0% 7% 17% 38% 38% 32 88%

TOTAL 46 4.01 0.802 1.2% 2.5% 19.3% 43.3% 33.8% 47 95.5%

Table 5. Relationship between crowdedness and value using Kendall’s tau.

16

Table 5. Relationship between crowdedness and value using Kendall’s tau

Cave Tour n rho p

Focus on Mammotha 2 . .

Frozen Niagara** 142 -0.275 0.000

Great Onyx Lantern 29 -0.194 0.266

Historic 132 -0.124 0.124

Introduction to Cavinga 15 . .

Ranger-led Discovery 46 0.005 0.969

River Styx 36 0.068 0.665

Self-guided Discovery 17 0.270 0.248

Star Chamber 12 -0.188 0.498

Travertine 38 -0.091 0.542

Trog 10 -0.209 0.519

Violet City Lantern* 27 -0.368 0.042

a insufficient data

* significant at the .05 level

** significant at the .01 level

16

Table 5. Relationship between crowdedness and value using Kendall’s tau

Cave Tour n rho p

Focus on Mammotha 2 . .

Frozen Niagara** 142 -0.275 0.000

Great Onyx Lantern 29 -0.194 0.266

Historic 132 -0.124 0.124

Introduction to Cavinga 15 . .

Ranger-led Discovery 46 0.005 0.969

River Styx 36 0.068 0.665

Self-guided Discovery 17 0.270 0.248

Star Chamber 12 -0.188 0.498

Travertine 38 -0.091 0.542

Trog 10 -0.209 0.519

Violet City Lantern* 27 -0.368 0.042

a insufficient data

* significant at the .05 level

** significant at the .01 level


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 31

PurposeThis descriptive study examined some demographic and social aspects of visitors at MCNP who took at least one guided cave tour during the summer of 2006.

Limitations

• ThesurveywasadministeredatMCNPduringoneweek,July23–29,2006.MCNPis open year round, so visitors who completed the survey at this time may not represent those who attend the park during other times of the year.

• VisitorsatMammothCavemaynotrespondthesamewayasthoseattendingotherNPS cave sites, so generalizations from this study are not possible.

Results

Visitor CharacteristicsNearly three-fourths (73%) of visitors in the sample were part of a family group consisting mostly of four or more individuals (54%) who came from Kentucky (21%), Ohio (14%), Indiana (13%), or Michigan (9%). Over 90% of respondents had obtained some information about the site prior to visitation, predominantly from the park website (57%), a previous visit (41%), or word-of-mouth communication (35%). A slim majority of visitors reported that MCNP was their primary destination (51%), while over 40% indicated that it was one of several stopovers in the area. Of the visitors completing a survey, 91% of them took at least one cave tour (n=396). During this time period, the Frozen Niagara and the Historic tours were the most popular ones (n=158 / 40%; n=147 / 37%, respectively), while the Trog (n=12 / 3%) and Focus on Mammoth tours (n=4 / 1%) were least attended.

Evaluation of Cave ToursAlthough a variety of questions were asked, findings reported here are based on the research questions. Over three-fourths of respondents (75.8%) indicated that the amount of crowding experienced on cave tours was similar to what they had anticipated. Only 10% of visitors reported more crowded conditions than expected. Mainly this percentage was due to 3 tours: Historic (34%); Frozen Niagara (27%); and the River Styx (19%). Nearly every visitor said that their guided cave tour was not too crowded to be enjoyable (93.5%). Seven percent of visitors on the Great Onyx Lantern and Star Chamber tours said they were more crowded than expected, but 100% indicated that they were not too crowded to enjoy. The average tour yielded a 95.5% approval rating (recommend it to someone else). See Table 3.

The average score of “value for fee paid” was M=4.01. About 34% of the visitors rated the tours as very good and 43% said they were good (only 19% of visitors rated their trips as average). See Table 4. Kendall’s tau was used to test the relationship between value for fee paid and perceived crowdedness for each of the cave tours. Using an alpha level of 0.05, a significant correlation was found in only two tests: the Frozen Niagara Tour (p = 0.00, r = -.275) and the Violet City Lantern Tour (p = .042, r = -.368). See Table 5.

Discussion and ImplicationsIndicators of satisfaction used in this study suggest that visitors had positive experiences on most of the guided tours at MCNP. However, this result may be due to socially



acceptable responses or influences from one or more coping behaviors. The true source of visitor satisfaction is unknown and cannot be determined from this study. Over three-fourths of visitors reported that crowding on the cave tours was “about as expected” and only 10% said that crowdedness was more than what they had anticipated. Although crowding standards at MCNP have not been established for guided tours, this discussion might be warranted based on how these results are perceived by resource managers. However, caution should be exercised before establishing absolute use levels since revenue might suffer.

Although an extensive number of crowding studies have been published in the outdoor recreation literature (Manning, 20111), this concept is poorly understood in caves and caverns. For example, if visitors experience fear and anxiety about being underground, then the presence of others might be comforting, at least on some tours. By definition, crowding is the negative evaluation of use level. Surprisingly, no attention has been given to the “positive” aspects of crowding. Doorne (2000) studied the effect of nationality on crowding and found that some visitor groups (Japanese and Koreans) had lower perceptions of crowding as compared with others (Australians and New Zealanders). Presumably this finding was due to the level of crowdedness in their respective countries. Although the number of international visitors at MCNP is low (3%), this factor should be considered as major demographic shifts are predicted to occur in the United States over time.

Crowdedness on guided tours did not seem to negatively influence experience for most visitors at MCNP. None of the tours were rated as “too crowded to be enjoyable,” but some visitors on the high-capacity ones (Historic and Frozen Niagara) reported that crowding was an issue when compared to those having smaller audiences. Interestingly, this factor did not translate into a negative recommendation. The Violet City Lantern tour (low capacity) received the lowest score for “recommend to others.” Since this tour was not too crowded to enjoy, it appears that other factors are influencing the evaluation. Nearly every visitor, regardless of tour, said that they would recommend it to someone else—an indicator of satisfaction.

Value for fee paid (another indicator of visitor satisfaction) on the “average” cave tour was > 4 using a standard five-point rating scale. Even the lowest-rated cave tour (Travertine) scored slightly below “good” by most visitors. Results from the Kendall’s tau tests indicated non-significant relationships between crowdedness and value for fee paid on ten out of twelve cave tours. Park managers should be pleased with these findings. Perhaps crowdedness influenced perceived value of the Frozen Niagara and Violet City Lantern tours, but a simple correlation does not mean causation unless other research is conducted on this relationship.

Conclusions Caves are fragile resources. Much damage can occur in a short time period since these environments have a low threshold of change (Northup, Mobley, Ingham, & Mixon, 1998). Due to the high number of visitors, cave managers must work toward achieving a reasonable balance between recreational enjoyment and resource preservation. Guided tours are one way to accomplish this goal (Davidson & Black, 2007).

Although cave tour attendance at MCNP is declining, this study was not designed specifically to measure the underlying cause(s). However, this issue warrants further attention because it affects other national parks that feature cave systems (six out of seven have experienced decreases in visitation during 1996–2005). Much is at stake and


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 33

various approaches will be needed to address this emerging issue. Here are some non-data driven strategies to possibly reverse this trend.

• ThemajorityofvisitorsatMCNPcomefromtheupperMidwest(Kentucky,Ohio,Indiana, and Michigan). In order to increase visitation, one solution is for park staff to target known market segments through a variety of advertising channels.

• TheNPScouldworkwiththetourismagenciesofsomestatestomakesurethatMCNP is featured in the “marketing mix” as one of their products.

• Workwiththeprivatesectortolauncha“soft”advertisingcampaignthatusesbillboards along Interstates 65 and 75. Since a large portion of MCNP visitors live within these heavily travelled corridors, this strategy might stimulate curiosity and word-of-mouth communication.

• TheuseofsocialnetworkingsitessuchasFacebookandTwittermightappealtosome people. Currently, these are not linked to the website. Other non-traditional markets might include senior citizens, military personnel, and underserved populations, but an outreach effort is needed to attract these visitors.

AcknowledgementsFinancial and logistical support for this study was made possible by the Visitor Services Project, a joint partnership between the National Park Service and the University of Idaho.

References CitedAnderson, D., & Brown, P. (1984). The displacement process in recreation. Journal of

Leisure Research, 16, 61-73.

Bultena, G., & Klessig, L. (1969). Satisfaction in camping: A conceptualization and guide to social research. Journal of Leisure Research, 1, 348-364.

Cigna, A., & Burri, E. (2000). Development, management and economy of show caves. International Journal of Speleology, 29(1), 1-27.

Culver, D., Hobbs, H., Christman, M., & Master, L. (1999). Distribution map of caves and cave animals in the United States. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, 61(3), 139-140.

Davidson, P., & Black, R. (2007). Voices from the profession: Principles of successful guided cave interpretation. Journal of Interpretation Research, 12(2), 25-43.

Dillman, D. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: J. Wiley.

Doorne, S. (2000). Caves, cultures, and crowds: Carrying capacity meets consumer sovereignty. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(2), 116-130).

Dorfman, P. (1979). Measurement and meaning of recreation satisfaction: A case study of camping. Environment and Behavior, 11, 483-510.

Gillieson, D. (1996). Caves: Processes, development, and management. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.

Heberlein, T., & Shelby, B. (1977). Carrying capacity, values, and the satisfaction model: A reply to Greist. Journal of Leisure Research, 9, 142-148.



Hendee, J., Stankey, G., & Lucas, R. (1990). Wilderness Management. Golden, CO: North American Press.

LaPage, W. (1983). Recreation resource management for visitor satisfaction. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 1, 37-44.

Manning, R. (1985). Crowding norms in backcountry settings: A review and synthesis. Journal of Leisure Research, 17, 75-89.

Manning, R. (2011). Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for satisfaction. 3rd ed. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

Manning, R., & Ciali, C. (1980). Recreation density and user satisfaction: A further exploration of the satisfaction model. Journal of Leisure Research, 12, 329-345.

Manning, R., & Valliere, W. (2001). Coping in outdoor recreation: Causes and consequences of crowding and conflict among community residents. Journal of Leisure Research, 33(4), 410-426.

Miller, T., & McCool, S. (2003). Coping with stress in outdoor recreational settings: An application of transactional stress theory. Leisure Sciences, 25, 257-275.

National Park Service (2011a). Tour of park geology – cave and karst parks. Retrieved May 8, 2011, from http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/tour/caves.cfm

National Park Service (2011b). Mammoth Cave. Retrieved May 8, 2011, from http://www.nps.gov/maca/index.htm

Noe, F. (1987). Measurement specification and leisure satisfaction. Leisure Sciences, 9, 163-172.

Northup, D., Mobley, E., Ingham, K., & Mixon, W. (1998). A guide to speleological literature of the English language, 1794-1996. St. Louis: Cave Books.

Schneider, I., & Stanis, S. (2007). Coping: An alternative conceptualization for constraint negotiation and accommodation. Leisure Sciences, 29, 391-401.

Shelby, B., Bregenzer, N., & Johnson, R. (1988). Displacement and product shift: Empirical evidence from Oregon rivers. Journal of Leisure Research, 20, 274-288.

Stankey, G., & McCool, S. (1984). Carrying capacity in recreational settings: Evaluation, appraisal, and application. Leisure Sciences, 6, 453-473.

Stokols, D. (1972). On the distinction between density and crowding: Some implications for future research. Psychological Review, 79, 275-277.

Swayne, L., Littlejohn, M., Morgan, M., & Hollenhorst, S. (2007). Mammoth Cave National Park Visitor Study. Report 177. Moscow, ID: Park Studies Unit.

Tian-Cole, S., Crompton, J., & Willson, V. (2002). An empirical investigation of the relationships between service quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions among visitors to a wildlife refuge. Journal of Leisure Research, 34, 1-24.

Wagar, J. (1964). The carrying capacity for wild lands for recreation. Forest Science Monograph, 7, Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters.


Environmental Socialization Incidents with Implications for the Expanded Role of Interpretive Naturalists in Providing Natural History Experiences

Robert D. Bixler263 Lehotsky HallClemson UniversityClemson, SC [email protected]

J. Joy JamesAppalachian State UniversityHolmes Convocation Center 32ASU Box 32071Boone, NC [email protected]

Carin E. VadalaAlaska Regional Office, National Park Service240 W. 5th Ave. Anchorage, AK [email protected]

AbstractNatural history has all but disappeared from formal education in the United States. This places the responsibility of introducing people to natural history within nonformal educational settings, with interpretive naturalists taking a leading role. This qualitative study of the life histories of 51 natural history-oriented professionals establishes additional roles for interpretive naturalists interacting with and programming for people with an emerging interest in natural history. Young adults with a strong interest in competency in natural history topics were characterized by having access to a variety of natural environments, social support, opportunities to develop environmental competencies, and accumulation of many and varied environmental experiences that resulted in creation of robust personal and social identities around natural history. Findings suggest that the work of interpretive naturalists is part of an amorphous web


of people, places, institutions, and personal experiences that foster an interest in natural history. Of particular importance for interpreters is planning and presenting program-to-program transitions (PTPT) for visitors.

Keywordsenvironmental socialization, social support, competency, environmental identity, program-to-program transition (PTPT)

IntroductionInterpretive naturalists wishing to provide natural history programming to the public face many challenges and much competition. Corporations use massive product/service development and marketing budgets to create almost irresistible experiences competing for people’s attention through “experience economy” strategies (Pine & Gilbert, 1999). Additionally, strategies to encourage repeat purchases and loyalty are being used in relationship marketing in business sectors as mundane as gas stations, credit cards, and airlines (Berry, 1995). While there are many choices for activities that engage people, sports in particular have become a second religion for most Americans with non-stop offerings of games, televisions channels, internet sites, youth programming, clothing, and video games (Lauer, 2007). Consequently, simply providing discrete natural history programs and exhibits can no longer be viewed as a responsive strategy by parks and nature centers. Natural history programming must be varied and rich, but must include establishing and maintaining ongoing relationships with visitors.

In particular, interpretive naturalists play a role in helping the general public develop an understanding of biodiversity through providing experiences for visitors that cultivate a deeper appreciation of the diversity of life around them. A brief review of the history and decline of natural history offerings in formal educational settings establishes a primary role for nonformal settings such as nature centers and parks for increasing appreciation of natural history.

Starting in the 1870s and well into the 1950s, nature study was part of primary school curricula. In North America, nature study was introduced by Louis Agassiz in 1873 at the Anderson School of Natural History on Penikisi Island with a call to “study nature, not books” (Armitage, 2009). A decade later nature study was championed for urban public schools by Wilbur Jackman and John Merle Coulter at the University of Chicago. Liberty Hyde Bailey and Anna Botsford Comstock at Cornell developed similar programs for rural communities, in hopes of making rural life more engaging (Kohlstedt. 2005), with a focus on direct observation of everyday nature. In schools, “nature story” readers were used in the language arts, while natural history collections were a staple of science curricula and were common hobbies among families, camps, and scouting (Armatage, 2009). These early proponents of nature study emphasized direct experiences with nature over book learning (Armatage, 2009; Kohlstedt, 2005). In the late 1950s, the Russian Sputnik space mission created political pressures in the United States to move science education toward the physical sciences (Clowse, 1981). With the publication of Silent Spring (Carson, 1962) and the celebration of the first Earth Day in 1970, nature study was viewed as sentimental in contrast to important environmental issues. Today, at least anecdotally, natural history collections and insect collections specifically have all but disappeared from science classes due to animal welfare concerns and a general increase in squeamishness (Bixler & Floyd, 1999; Holstermann, Grube, &

r o b e r t d. b i x l e r , j . j oy j a m e s, c a r i n e . va da l a

v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 37

Bogeholz, 2009; Pyle, 2009). Finally, with the rise of business models at universities in the 1990s, biology departments have refocused research and curriculum at the (lucrative) molecular level (Gropp, 2003). But even before and certainly during this shift in the focus of biology departments there has been a broad contempt among many biologists for natural history and systematics (Cotterill & Foissner, 2009; Grant, 2000; Holden, 1989; Woodland, 2007).

This brief history of natural history suggests that it has undergone and is undergoing a cultural decay from formal education in Western culture. This thesis is consistent with the socio-ecological concept of macrosystems in which shifts in cultural values have a cascading, and in this case, negative influence on the microsystem (person, family, school) (Bronfenbrenner, 1994; 2000). Parks, nature centers, and museums are quickly becoming the major places where people are exposed to natural history (Bell, 1997; Weilbacher, 1993). The responsibility of introducing and expanding people’s interest in natural history may well fall disproportionately on interpretive naturalists.

Literature ReviewWhile much has been written about the use of education and persuasion techniques in increasing environmental concerns, empirical evidence that these techniques provide lasting changes in pro-environmental attitudes is equivocal (Stern, 2000; Saylan & Blumstein, 2011). Changing attitudes through education has been presented as a (quick) fix for environmental problems. A growing discontent with environmental attitude research has led some social scientists to begin examining environmental identities, the formation of which can be a lengthy and involved process (Clayton & Opotow, 2003; Schultz & Tabanico, 2007; James, Bixler, & Vadala, 2010). Likewise, the type of environmental concern being addressed matters. Once social scientists move beyond studying human welfare-driven environmental concerns, such as clean air and water (DeYoung, 2000; Stern, 2000), interest in other issues dwindles. There is little awareness and understanding of biodiversity and subsequent concern about issues such as species extinction (American Museum of Natural History, 1998; Biodiversity Project, 2002), two issues that have as one of their cognitive and experiential foundations a familiarity with natural history.

Given that developing an environmental identity is a long and involved environmental socialization process, and that there are few opportunities at any level of formal education to be exposed to natural history, helping people develop a robust interest must come primarily through informal experiences. In 1975, Dunlap and Heffernan described a statistically significant but not strong relationship between participation in wildland recreation activities and pro-environmental attitudes. Tiesl and O’Brien (2003) later demonstrated stronger relationships between wildland recreation activities and pro-environmental attitudes, but only for some types of activities. Scrutiny of their results suggest that recreation activities that require some knowledge of nature to participate (e.g. birding, hunting) were more strongly related to pro-environmental attitudes than those only requiring physical prowess. From these studies, Bixler and James (2005) have argued that concern for the non-human environmental issues emerges from long-term participation in egoistic behaviors (recreation activities and hobbies) that create an intellectual, emotional, and experiential foundation for an emerging understanding of such issues as biodiversity. Through these activities, birders, hunters, amateur entomologists, and other hobbyists stumble onto, are attentive to, and develop

e n v i r o n m e n ta l s o c i a l i z at i o n i n c i d e n t s


concerns about environmental issues closely associated with their leisure interest. This process can be as simple as a birder joining National Audubon Society to learn more about birds and ending up reading about and becoming concerned about extinction of birds. Due to a birder’s personal (egoistic) interest/identity with something in nature, a concern for that nature-object readily emerges when it is threatened.

Flowing from the above arguments and literature, we suggest that a major challenge for interpretive naturalists is to introduce people to natural history-dependent recreation and hobbies. Once introduced, a greater concern is how to reengage and sustain their audiences’ emerging interest to the extent that it becomes a robust and dominant identity.

Existing research on significant life experiences (SLE) of conservationists has correctly called attention to the importance of the role of childhood play in interstitial and wild places (Tanner, 1980, Chawla, 1998). In Chawla’s 1998 review of existing studies, childhood play was found in accounts of between 64 and 91 percent of the participants. Unfortunately, the SLE literature has also downplayed the importance of a wide variety of influences that probably occur mostly after middle childhood. We suspect that during childhood, opportunities for diverse socio-physical interactions with natural environments are mostly limited to play. Basically, parental restrictions, child labor laws, a child’s developmental limitations, and lack of higher academic degrees for children restrict what a person can accomplish during early and middle childhood. Consequently, almost all research participants report the one activity (childhood play in nature) that was readily available to them. Louv (2005) popularized our understanding of this relationship that was described by researchers such as Tanner as early as 1980 and replicated by other researchers (Palmer, 1998; Chawla, 1998; Bixler, Floyd, & Hammitt, 2002).

As the developing environmental person progresses from childhood into teen years and becomes a young adult, there are more varied ways to experience and interact with nature than play. Consequently, the myriad post-childhood play experiences are not as highly ranked as significant life experiences simply because there are more types of them (see Chawla, 1998), making them seem less important. Regardless, these research projects all document that adult conservationists recall having many and varied experiences with nature growing up. Not surprisingly, the importance of iconic and exotic locations in the narratives of conservationists go largely unmentioned, suggesting that local/regional natural areas are far more developmentally important than distant national parks or overseas locations because of opportunities for frequent and low-cost experiences. As an analogy, few people unfamiliar with basketball would develop the ability to understand, interpret, enjoy watching, and play basketball by taking one long trip, seeing one game, and then returning home to a place devoid of basketball. A similar argument was made in the 1700s by Sir Frederick William Herschel a professional musician and possibly the most well known amateur astronomer. Herschel argued that astronomical observing was like playing a musical instrument and required frequent practice (Mollise, 2006).

The Environmental Socialization ProjectThis is the third of three papers reporting results of a study of the life history of natural-history-oriented professionals. This paper reports concrete strategies useful to interpreters who recognize that a single interpretive program is part of a larger socialization process. The larger study was initially motivated by an exploratory study of the life experiences and characteristics of paddle sports participants that documented a seven-component


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 39

“environmental socialization” process that went well beyond activity instruction (Bixler & Morris, 2000). The first of the three papers “Childhood play and environmental interests: Panacea or snake oil?” (Vadala, Bixler, & James, 2007) reinforced previous results of studies indicating the importance of childhood play in nature and later environmental interests. The analysis indicated that most children with access to natural areas played in these places, but children who later went on to natural-history-oriented careers or hobbies may have engaged in more play with nature (e.g. searching for animals) than play with other children in nature (e.g. war games with walnuts). Their play content with nature was sometimes motivated by and reflected the content of books and movies the children had been exposed to (e.g. Laura Ingalls Wilder’s Farmer Boy). A comparison group of young adults disinterested in anything related to the outdoors and nature described formative experiences devoid of experiences with natural areas.

The second paper, “From Play in Nature to Recreation, then Vocation: A Developmental Model for Natural History Oriented Environmental Professionals” (James, et al, 2010), described the developmental processes and stages (childhood to young adult) identified in the lives of natural-history-oriented young adults. Describing sequences of events over 15 to 20 years of a young person’s life, the model illustrates the importance of complementary, recurring, expanding, and frequent environmental activities rich in intellectual content, direct and emotionally fulfilling experiences with nature, and varying degrees and types of social support. The model illustrates how these relationships evolved through several qualitatively different developmental stages beyond childhood.

In this second paper, James et al (2010) described childhood play in/with nature evolving into the learning of more formal wildland recreation activities. Mastering these recreation activities (e.g. tent camping, canoeing) facilitated continued experiences in and with nature. Later, these recreation activities became ancillary skills for field-oriented natural history hobbies and professional activities. That is, canoeing became a means to enjoying nature along waterways instead of being an end in itself.

Social support was evident in the developmental pathways, even with the widely reported self-directed and unstructured childhood play with nature. Some parents provided opportunities for nature play by their children by doing nothing more than valuing and choosing places near nature to live (see Vadala, Bixler, & James, 2007). Childhood play expanded into exploration further away from the child’s yard and then more distant geographies through vacations, summer camps, and summers with relatives. Invitations from peers, mentors, and self to participate in natural-history-oriented activities along with introductions to other people with similar interests extended, expanded, and diversified experiences. The types of supportive persons changed across the developmental stages from parents to peers, camp counselors, teachers, nature center staff, scout leaders, pet store employees, zoos, significant others, and finally environmental professionals and university instructors (James, et al, 2010).

The second paper (James, et al, 2010) made explicit the complexity and long-term engagement required to create and sustain an interest in natural history, well beyond childhood play in nature. The paper also demonstrated that the presence of natural history interests was not just a function of a formal educational process. Rather it involved many subtle informal socialization processes, strongly suggesting that a discrete educational event was a necessary but insufficient strategy.

When the second paper was finished, we became concerned that the process of creating abstract categories from many events identified from the lives of our informants



ended up obscuring the variety and richness of concrete strategies that created and maintain social worlds (Ditton, Loomis, & Choi, 1992) based on interests in natural history. Additionally, nonformal educators frequently expressed concern that they could not use many of the ideas in the James et al (2010) model since it spanned 15 to 20 years, while an interpreter’s contact with a person with an emerging interest in natural history may be very short, often less than a day or even just an hour.

The purpose of this third paper is to make explicit how a single strategy applied at one point in time could help a park visitor to persist with their developing natural history interests. Actionable incidents are described along with how interpretive naturalists and others can strategically increase the likelihood that these often unrecognized incidents will occur more often and with more persons.

MethodsThis study is a part of a larger qualitative research project on environmental socialization. The original data came from 51 in-depth interviews of highly motivated and/or exceptional field naturalists who were hobbyists, informal-setting educators, and/or professional conservationists. They were employed by universities, nature centers, environmental learning centers, zoos, or land conservancies, or they were in graduate school. Participants between the ages of 18 to 35 were identified and nominated by directors of natural-resource-related conservation organizations/clubs and research scientists at universities. Interviews took up to two hours and were conducted in person or by phone. Each participant was asked about their environmental life histories and the development of their interest in nature. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and initially coded using a priori theory. Domain analysis (Spradley, 1979) was conducted and descriptive models were created.

Methods associated with grounded theory were used to complete this third analysis to identify applications for interpreters (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Grounded theory is an inductive approach, using open coding, to describe phenomena not readily apparent prior to conducting the research. Analysis steps included:

1. Reading and rereading interviews and making notes about significant incidents.

2. Coding interviews, memos/notes, and discussions for incidents/events, whether unique or shared by many participants.

3. Labeling socialization incident codes with environmental socialization terms.

4. Conducting member checks to refine the identified environmental socialization terms and definitions.

5. Repeatedly re-reading of interviews and reformulating definitions for incident terms.

6. Finalizing the terms with a supportive definition and representative quote.

7. Finally, critical incidences were evaluated for their usefulness in informing practice through logic, past work experiences of the researchers, and presentation of results to professional interpreters and environmental educators in four different workshop settings lasting from 2.5 days to one hour.

Based on these processes, ESP incidences that were not found to be readily actionable by parents, peers, practitioners, or self are not reported.


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 41


ResultsThe ESP incident terms identified in this study were categorized into five environmental socialization opportunities: access to natural environments, social support, accumulation of environmental experiences, development of environmental competencies, and environmental identity formation. Each of these five categories were defined and explained, then sub-categories with definitions, applications, and a representative datum are presented in table form.

Access to Natural Environments. The first category in our analysis was already strongly evident in the existing significant life experience literature (Tanner, 1980; Chawla, 1998; Chawla, 1999; Palmer, 1993; Palmer, Suggare, Bajd, Hart, Ho, Ofwono-Orecho, Peries, Robottom, Tsaliki, & Van Staden, 1998). Access to natural environments encompasses mechanisms that create opportunities for children, youth, and emerging adults to have access to and interact with interstitial, semi-wild, and wild environments. The incident terms described within this category include: Environmental Access, Environmental Strategy, Environmental Travel, Content of Environmental Play, Home Range, and Environmental Norm. Definitions, applications, and supportive data can be found in Table 1.

Table 1: Domain: Access to Natural EnvironmentsEnvironmental Socialization Terms/Definition/Notes

Representative Datum

Environmental Access

Definition: Proximity to natural environments in childhood, teenage, and adult years. An individual’s choice to be in the natural world can be motivated by play, exploration, recreation, or furthering an intellectual interest in the environment.

Additional notes: Environmental access for children often reflects the values of parents or peers. Highly motivated persons were strategic in gaining access to natural environments when they were not readily available.

Applications: Conduct workshops for parents, land-planners, and housing developers on child-friendly landscaping; criticize golf course-style home landscaping; provide opportunities for self-directed exploration by children and youth of undeveloped areas during, between and after programming/classes.

A nice residential neighborhood that was surrounded pretty much by parks and a few forests. I think one industrial park, so there were lots of trees, a lot of greenery around us. And as a kid that allowed us to do a lot of exploring, you know I had friends. We’d often go, just go through the woods. That’s what kids do.


Environmental Socialization Terms/Definition/Notes


Environmental Strategy

Definition: A situation-specific plan for obtaining new or additional experiences with nature or anything environmental.

Additional notes: These strategies were self-initiated. In other situations, interested persons provided environmental strategies to the person seeking experiences. (See Table 2.)

Applications: Model environmental strategic thinking about choices; promote ownership in the decision; make sure the developing person does the actual reasoning.

So, the aquarium was being built, and I was intrigued with it. There was a tour given to members…during construction. So, I…did the tour…with all the members… and I think I was there every weekend the first few weeks just going through it. It was just the most wonderful thing I’d ever seen. I was really attracted to the fish, and I had never felt that way about any of the other animals I’d seen out here. I saw in the membership magazine that they wanted volunteers at the aquarium. And I was accepted into the program. Very shortly after volunteering, I knew that it was what I wanted to do for the rest of my life. Not long after that I applied to USC’s marine biology department.

Environmental Travel

Definition: Travel that exposes a person to a combination of different geographies, ecologies, new environmental perspectives, and/or new environmentally oriented friends or professionals.

Applications Offer travel programs to nearby areas that are geographically different; seek scholarships for children from marginalized backgrounds to participate in programs held in different geographies.

The diversity of things when you get out of Alberta and you’ve got pikas, weird little mammal things, just things that you’ve never seen before, I thought Canada was the same, but there are mountains and oceans and oysters and things that aren’t in Ontario…so I got a chance to really see Canada and all it had to offer, which was pretty exciting. So between the ages of five and ten, we did side trips here and there and made it coast to coast, but mostly I remember one place in Massachusetts where there were cockroaches everywhere, and we would run around and chase them and I remember there were bullfrogs everywhere. I remember when deer ate out of my hands… more of the fantastic experiences that I had or the connections that I made were with animals, I guess, more than the waterfalls.

Content of Environmental Play

Definition: Self-directed behaviors during childhood that involve being in and around natural environments and interstitial areas.

Additional notes: (See Vadala, Bixler, & James (2008) for a detailed analysis of childhood play content from this same data set.)

Applications: Provide programs with unstructured time to just play. Minimize playing organized sports during free time at residential environmental education centers; designate areas where self-directed play in nature can occur.

I could go down to the creek. My sister and I would go down there and practice our frog-catching technique, you know, try to catch frogs without getting wet, see turtles, see muskrats. The beavers would come every year and build a dam, flooding our yard. We liked to see what the beavers did. Pretty much anything that lived in a creek we saw all the time.


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 43




Home Range

Definition: How far children were allowed to explore away from home by parents.

Additional notes: It seems that these rules are often broken by children who go farther afield than allowed. Exploring seems to be an important component of childhood play and probably helps develop wayfinding skills. (See Table 3 Environmental Competencies.)

Applications: Help children and youth develop skills specific to wayfinding that could empower them to explore on their own.

When I was young, I was restricted to within their sight, but sometimes I would wander off by myself and wander off into the woods. As I got older, I really didn’t have any restrictions. I was brought up—they pretty much expected you to take care of yourself.

Environmental Norm

Definition: Beliefs about appropriate standards of behavior related to anything environmental. Environmental norms can be emerging notions about whether or how to interact with natural phenomenon or established codes of conduct consistent with environmental values.

Applications: State and discuss normative beliefs; draw attention to others whose behavior is consistent with norms.

I’m more willing to get dirty and get out there than a lot of girls I grew up with and went to high school with. I’m not going to say, “That’s gross—I’m not going to pick up that trash.” If I see a bag on the beach, I pick it up. It’s got barnacles and it’s gross, I pick it up anyway. I think a lot of people do not want to touch it.


Social Support. Children who live near woods often play there partly because their parents perceive such activity as appropriate. After childhood, peers, camp counselors, teachers, park rangers, and professors play an increasingly important role in recognizing people’s abilities, supporting, interpreting, and guiding their further discoveries, opportunities, and choices. The terms described within this category include: Environmental Encounters, Environmental Convoy, Mutually Enthusiastic Relationships, Environmental Sponsorship, Environmental Prequalification, Environmental Organization, and Reverential Role Model. Definitions, applications, and supportive data can be found in Table 2.

Table 2: Domain: Social SupportEnvironmental Socialization Terms/Definition/Notes


Environmental Encounters

Definition: Unintended encounters with like-minded environmentally oriented people.

Additional notes: These unplanned encounters often result because shared interests are recognized due to clothing, context, specialized vocabulary, equipment, or pets.

Applications: All public programs provide opportunities for like-minded persons to encounter each other; provide program participants with clothing or memorabilia that could result in recognition by others of an environmental interest.

At the pet store, I would see somebody buying a mouse and I would say, “That guy has a snake” and I would go talk to him.

Environmental Convoy

Definition: A group of people who move through environmental experiences together over an extended period of time.

Additional notes: This seems to occur in scouting and university academic programs.

Applications: Design programs that involve repeated experiences with the same people (e.g., clubs); identify participants with enthusiasm for topics and make sure they become involved in other programs with their peers and other enthusiasts; pair learning activities with social events.

A group of entomology graduate students studied, explored, traveled, and recreated together for three years, with most activities focused on insects (field notes).


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 45




Mutually Enthusiastic Relationships

Definition: Informal interactions between parents, peers, relatives, and/or mentors that provide mutually rewarding learning about environmental interests over extended stretches, often continued from a distance when direct contact was no longer possible.

Additional notes: These relationships were described by respondents as nonjudgmental, sharing friendships. When a parent or teacher was involved, the relationship was characterized by being non-evaluative.

Applications: Cultivate relationships between participants with similar interests; use social networking internet sites; a few months after a major program, have a reunion gathering to revisit learning and renew friendships.

I grew up in a very rural part of North Carolina. My father worked swing shift, so he was off and I wasn’t in school, we would go on hikes through the woods in our backyard. Obviously that’s a tie I associated with my father and enjoying the outdoors at the same time, but he was also an avid fisherman. And so was my grandfather. It’s been traced down through my family for a number of years, and as far back as I can remember, my grandfather and my father would always take a weekend out of the fall and go fishing, and when I got old enough, I did that too. So that is probably one of the first major events in steering me toward a career in natural science or the environment. Later on when it came to going to school and learning about science, it really clicked in my mind. I paid attention to it more, especially ecology…. My grandfather would watch me in the summertime when school was out. He was a farmer. I would help him out in the fields starting at 4:00 a.m. … and he would practice as best he could organic farming. He would know when to water, what insects were beneficial…. I started associating value-concepts with the environment.

Environmental Sponsorship

Definition: Purposefully involving someone else in a program that provides direct or indirect environmental experiences.

Additional notes: Parents, teachers, internship supervisors, employers, and friends were all involved in getting someone else involved in environmental experiences.

Applications: Having identified a specific interest of a program participant, help them find additional opportunities; have teachers nominate talented/interested children from marginalized backgrounds who might not otherwise have opportunities to participate.

When I was in high school, my art teacher told me about this camp, which was called [name], so I went there. And so my art teacher, I think he knew that I was interested and stuff like that.




Environmental Organization

Definition: Membership or involvement with local, state, national, or international environmentally based organizations.

Additional notes: We suspect that when natural history hobbyists join organizations that at least partially focus on related environmental issues, heightened awareness of these issues is easily cultivated.

Applications: Make participants aware of environmental organizations locally and globally; give memberships as gifts, awards, etc.

There is the AABGA, it’s the American Association of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta, which I am involved with, sort of deepens my interest in that field.

Reverential Role Model

Definition: A highly talented person who attracts the attention of an environmentally developing person. Out of awe he or she becomes a reference for skills, avocations, vocations, attitudes, ways of thinking, etc.

Additional notes: Often a single person, either a family member or teacher/professor is mentioned with awe. Most examples were of people with whom the respondent had direct contact. A few people, such as Tom Brown, Jr., were mentioned, although direct interaction had not occurred. Rather, he was known from his writings and actions.

Applications: Use examples of prominent natural history enthusiasts and environmental leaders in programs.

I think it was more just getting to share the experience with him than anything else. I know he made it a big deal. I remember they had the little sticker on the back that they gave money to the Park Service and so I always remember that because it had the little bears on it and I knew what that was. As far as he actually talking to me about it, I don’t think so. I think it was more just time for me to go out and maybe because he died when I was 14 and so it might be partly I held on to that because I thought he was the greatest thing on earth. I can actually remember my grandmother one Thanksgiving almost in tears because she was so happy that I chose an environmental field because my grandfather would be so proud and they cared so much for the environment and so on.


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 47


Development of Environmental Competencies. The ability to enjoy natural environments requires developing a range of largely unrecognized ancillary skills and activities. Frequent experiences in wild places heightens understanding of these places both perceptually and intellectually, and results in habituation to environmental irritants. The critical incidents described within this category include: Environmentally Competent, Environmental Introduction, Environmental Learning, Environmental Searching, Learning Wildland Recreation Activities, Environmental Cataloging, Raising Wild Animals, Ancillary Skills, Scaring Others with Wild Things, Tolerance for Bad Weather, Appreciation of Weather Extremes, Getting Dirty, Observant, and Outdoor Chores. Definitions, applications, and supportive data can be found in Table 3.

Table 3: Domain: Development of Environmental CompetenciesEnvironmental Socialization Terms/Definition/Notes


Environmentally Competent

Definition: The person exhibits a wide range of skills and knowledge about natural environments and related issues that increase efficiency, safety, and enjoyment.

Additional note: We suspect that the range of skills needed to function in wildlands is vast and largely unrecognized, as they are learned implicitly through repeated experiences through play and recreation. (See Bixler & Morris, 2000)

Applications: Provide outdoor recreation activity instruction, but only those that can evolve into ancillary skills for Natural History oriented activities while avoiding activities that involve speed or thrill-seeking, or can evolve into racing; provide for repeated experiences in the outdoors that are self-directed.

I’m not trying to brag. My garden looks fantastic. It really does, and very often people come to my garden and ask for information. Unfortunately they also know that I work at the botanic garden, so they come with a lot of questions. And I don’t mind. I enjoy teaching.

Environmental Introduction

Definition: A person’s first basic robust set of experiences with environments through play, exploration, or activity participation.

Additional notes: Often occurs in childhood through access to natural or interstitial areas. Extended programs through camps may also provide an environmental introduction. See environmental extension, environmental expansion for related concepts in Table 4.

Applications: Provide opportunities for people with no experience to have a robust experience with natural environments under ideal circumstances.

I lived with my grandma my entire life. She would take us out to a park and would show us different trees; she could name trees and tell me what you can get from them. Animals, she could name birds and things like. I guess that came to her from growing up in a rural setting.




Environmental Learning

Definition: The process or action of acquiring socio-physical skills or knowledge of natural environments.

Additional notes: Learning can be experiential (individual discovery through direct experience), media (use of books and technology), and modeling (direct observation of other people or groups).

Applications: Provide for all three methods of learning (experiential, media, modeling).

(Experiential): Gardening is one of the most humbling experiences. You know you can garden for 50 years and learn something new every day, and it really puts you in tune. It by far has been the thing that has made me…more conservation-minded and more environmentally friendly by far over all the other experiences.

(Media): I know that my aunts and uncles and grandparents every year for my birthday or Christmas gave me the Golden Books of field guides and they gave them to my sister as well, but she wasn’t interested and I ended up getting hers, too.

(Modeling): So when I was about 11, there was this historic farm museum that was close to where I lived and they had this apprentice program so you could go out one day a week and learn trades of a farmer from 1850.

Environmental Searching

Definition: Actively looking, smelling, feeling, tasting, or listening for objects or phenomena in the environment.

Additional notes: These behaviors appear during childhood play, but continue into adulthood. The process of searching resulting in discovery, recognition, and observation are intrinsically rewarding. See Environmental Play Content as a related concept.

Applications: Design/provide discovery-oriented activities that allow for observation of natural phenomena; centers should allow check-out of equipment such as insect nets, bug boxes, and media materials for self-directed searching.

I know when to look for [plant name] in the woods. It’s in July. I know when to look for a [plant name] in the woods. I know that’s late March or early April. So it gives me more of an understanding of this area that I live in by going on wildflower walks. I kind of know that pollinators will be out or when to do certain things. I mean I know that there are actually gnats and bees out in early March and April because I go out and see them.


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 49



Learning Wildland Recreation Activities

Definition: The learning of skills necessary to participating in outdoor recreation activities.

Additional notes: Initially participation involves learning the specific activity for its own competency-based rewards, but for most natural-history enthusiasts, tent camping, hiking, and canoeing become a means to nature observation and conducting field research. A related concept is Ancillary Skills.

Applications: Provide instruction in activities that natural history hobbyists and professionals benefit from knowing.

We also did a Girl Guides camp…. We did a lot of canoeing trips, camping trips, where you learn all of your outdoor skills like fire building and shelter building and learning what plants to avoid and what kind of plants you could eat if you wanted and how to roll your sleeping bag—you know basic outdoor skills which are basic, so it’s all good.

Environmental Cataloging

Definition: Systematic collecting and/or naming plants and animals.

Additional notes: This seems to be an important activity in terms of a person developing into the traditional “field naturalist.” See the related concept of environmental searching above.

Applications: Provide opportunities to collect and/or identify organisms; use game show formats and other contests in programming; participate in bird-a-thons (or butterfly) as a team.

In my freshman year, my mom bought me this book, Medicinal and Edible Plants of the West. When I go hiking I just look at plants and try to figure out what they were, and you know I just used books. I don’t have anyone really to tell me that stuff, I just find books with good pictures and descriptions and kind of educate myself on that stuff.

Raising Wild Animals

Definition: Contact with wild animals as pets or through rehabilitation that leads to learning about wildlife and/or social recognition.

Additional notes: Persons who kept wildlife seem to enjoy the attention they received from having these unusual animals.

Applications: When appropriate, provide opportunities for caring for wild animals in exhibit areas or rehabilitation, when appropriate.

I would always carry animals in my pocket at school—gerbils in my pockets, rabbits in my bag, just strange stuff—I would bring strange stuff. Interviewer: Where did all these animals come from? Pets—they were pets. I have been through a lot of animals. Some of them died, some of them I lost, some of them I let go or gave away. Interviewer asks what did you do with them at school? Mostly showed them off in class or to the teacher. If she needed them or if she would be interested in having it in class, then I would leave my animal there for a week for other people in class to see—like a boa constrictor, so they can see it, not really touch it, but to have it in class. Some of that was just showing off.





Ancillary Skills

Definition: Skills not central to an activity but ones that increase efficiency of participation or reduce the stress of participation.

Additional notes: Ancillary skills are often overlooked by outdoor recreation programmers, but include everything from the importance of being able to swim and preference for participating in canoeing, to women knowing how to urinate in the woods. (See Bixler & Morris, 2000)

Applications: Teach navigation skills, swimming, camping, first aid, packing for trips, dressing for the outdoors, responses to bad weather, identification of dangerous animals, etc.

In having a mom who was very anti-camping, I grew up with like camping is terrible. When I went camping on my field botany class it wasn’t too bad. Um, I’m not sure if I could rough it for a long time with no facilities but, I mean like being out. Camping wasn’t bad, I just am one of those people who likes taking a shower.

Scaring Others with Wild Things

Definition: Confirming environmental self-competency by demonstrating that others do not know that something in nature is not harmful. Harmless snakes and insects along with mud and algae were the objects used to induce fear and disgust in others.

Additional notes: While not a socially desirable behavior, scaring others was frequently reported.

Applications: Help the person develop more appropriate ways of sharing and interacting that still establishes a perception of greater competency based on knowledge of plants or animals.

Yeah it was kind of fun chasing girls with [a snake]—all of them except one girl. We thought she was scared of them too until we got to chasing her one day and she already had a snake in her hand, so we didn’t mess with her anymore.


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 51



Tolerance for Bad Weather

Definition: Knowing coping mechanisms for spending time outdoors in inclement weather, and/or enjoying inclement weather as a natural phenomenon.

Additional notes: Coping with weather extremes is part knowing about clothing and part physiological adaptation through frequent exposure to weather and temperature extremes. (See Bixler & Morris, 2000)

Applications: Address the psychology of bad weather and selection of clothing and equipment for being outdoors in bad weather; tell stories of bad weather experiences and how they can be made enjoyable.

I think getting out on horses in all sorts of weather, knowing that they needed to be taken care of, no matter what was going on outside, I guess steeled me against getting my face chapped by the wind and being wet. It helped me realize I wasn’t going to melt.

Appreciation of Weather Extremes

Definition: Enjoying temperature extremes.

Additional notes: Most commonly reported with cold weather and camping.

Applications: Provide opportunities for cold weather camping; interpret the cold weather experience in a positive light.

You’re in your tent and it’s nice and humid and warm in there. You open up the flap and you step out, and that first…it almost hits you in the face, it’s so cold, and the ground is cold. I like that feeling—it instantly wakes you up. You’re instantly vivid and you feel like you could walk another 15 miles that day. So…I like that. I like the coldness of going down to the creek where we camp or hike and then splashing the mountain water on my face.

Getting Dirty

Definition: Incidental and not necessarily pleasant outcome (dirt, sweat) from participating in activities in outdoor places. But, playing in mud can be a motivation for children being outdoors interacting with nature.

Additional notes: Being tolerant of being dirty is particularly important if overnight camping trips and other extended activities in wildland areas are to occur. Much field biology research requires tolerance of being dirty.

Applications: Plan carefully and purposefully for enjoyable and intriguing experiences that involve getting dirty; interpret getting dirty in a positive light.

Oh yeah, we were always outdoors making mudpies. I think a lot of parents are afraid of letting their kids get dirty, but “God made dirt and dirt don’t hurt.”





Observant

Definition: Having keenly developed perceptual skills in wild environments.

Additional notes: Perception, attention, pattern recognition are all enhanced through time spent in natural environments. Some participants in the research were self-aware that they perceived more phenomena while being outdoors then their less-experienced companions.

Applications: Provide activities that teach observation skills while outside or traveling; lesson plans should include sensory/observation activities. (See James & Bixler, 2008.)

I’m different in that I see that much more. Driving down the road, what I see is much different from what other people see. My sister would drive home and not see a thing. As I got older I definitely was training myself to look at that stuff, but when I was a little kid just driving down the road I still looked at stuff.

Outdoor Chores

Definition: Activities assigned by adults that involve cutting firewood, hauling water, or weeding gardens.

Additional Note: Children’s play content sometimes mimicked chores. Camping and other outdoor activities require physically demanding or repetitive routines.

Applications: Make chores interesting through story telling, experimentation, observation, etc; use stories as themes for summer camps and club-based activities.

Laura Ingalls Wilder wrote a series of books and I was into the movies and all that. But the Farmer Boy—I read that book growing up enough times to wear through the pages. Loved that book. That was really a tremendous book for me. That’s what New Hampshire was like—I got to split the wood and I got to feed the fire. There was no running water, so we got to haul the water up from the spring so that probably what was so interesting about being in New Hampshire for the summer.


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 53

Accumulation of Environmental Experiences. Frequent and long-term participation in nature activities reinforces, renews and expands interests. People who are environmentally minded report many and varied experiences with wild places and conservation activities. At some point in their development, some of these activities may even monopolize their time. The critical incidents described within this category include: Environmental Extension, Environmental Expansion, Environmental Continuity, Environmental Substitute, Environmental Fluke, Environmental Wow, Environmental Constraints, Environmental Invitations, Environmentally Monopolized, and Time Alone in Nature. Definitions, applications, and supportive data can be found in Table 4.

Table 4: Domain: Accumulation of Outdoor ExperiencesEnvironmental Socialization Terms/Definition/Notes


Environmental Extension

Definition: Further development of a single existing environmental skill or interest.

Additional notes: Also, see Environmental Introduction (Table 3) and Environmental Expansion below.

Applications: Provide advanced courses; provide resources or access to resources that allow continuation of participation after a program ends.

I saw and was hearing [bird] sounds and seeing things that I didn’t know what they were, so I wanted to learn them and I had a guy that I was working for that was interested in it too, and there’s another researcher on the same research area, so it was, you know, those guys were experts and I wanted to get to know what they already knew.

Environmental Expansion

Definition: The addition of new activities or experiences that complement an existing natural history interest.

Additional notes: Environmental expansion is a developmentally important event in which a person adds new activities or experiences with places that provide new cognitive and psychomotor challenges, reinvigorating and continuing interest.

Applications: Invite and promote related programs and activities; in some cases, this may require referring people to other institutions.

I was totally into birding.… So, we did a road kill survey, we did a turtle survey which was really neat, we did snapping turtle surveys, we did a snake survey, we did a small mammal survey, it was really awesome—like the perfect wildlife job, and actually we did a lot of butterfly counts, too, so that was really cool.





Environmental Continuity

Definition: Activities, events, or social interactions that support continuation of existing environmental interests despite a change in geographic location or life course.

Additional notes: Meeting other people through recognizing their similar interests based on dress, specialized vocabulary, organizational involvement, or geographic proximity. See Environmental Invitation below, Extension and Expansion above as related concepts.

Applications: Community-based EE and nature centers, summer camps should refer a person who has become too old for the agency’s programs or leaving the geographic area to other opportunities elsewhere.

I have an aquarium at home that I maintain—freshwater aquarium, 55 gallons, But I am upgrading to a 75-gallon saltwater system. That occupies a large part of my time. And it’s a joke amongst my family…. I have always—there has never been a point in my life when I have not had an aquarium set up at home. Since I was three years old, they got a fish tank for me—a 10-gallon tank and put fish in it and I would just sit in front of the tank. And as I grew up they would get different fish or get more fish but I always had to have a fish tank in the house. So of course that is part of my house now.

Environmental Substitute

Definition: When life changes force a loss of an environmental activity, new activities are sought.

Additional notes: Replacements may be necessary due to change in geographic location, injury, or a different economic situation.

Applications: When a person must drop out of your organization, moves away, or wants a different type of experience, help them with finding similar opportunities in the same or new area.

I mean, I had done a lot for the nature center, but the management just could not pay me enough. So I had to give it up. And I made that decision—I got the contract to work for Environment Canada. And it is not insect related but it is part of the whole program, so I am fine with that. I was happy no matter what I did as long as it was somehow related to my degree. It still involved the outdoors, fieldwork, lab work, the whole thing and I was fine.

Environmental Fluke

Definition: An unexpected occurrence leading to further experiences, learning, or revelations.

Applications: Any activity that is discovery-oriented or self-directed provides opportunity for surprise; develop strategies to increase the likelihood of these events.

My wife and I lost our car and we were out walking or with our bikes for like maybe four or five months just to get transportation…and that made a huge difference because it showed us what was around us. You know when you’re in a car, you really don’t see, but then as you start to walk, you can start to see what’s right around you. You start to notice things.


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 55



Environmental Wow

Definition: A novel environmental event or sequence of related events that produce surprise or wonder often repeated because of novelty and discussed with others.

Additional notes: The novelty of these surprising events results in cognitive elaborations and social interactions. (See Environmental Fluke above for a related concept.)

Applications: Constantly search for novel activities that demonstrate natural phenomena; be conscious of how developmental level and previous experience moderate what is perceived as novel.

So much stuff out there, so many different insects that you can’t even imagine until you sweep through the bush. I couldn’t believe how much variety there was. It was amazing, so making my collection was a real eye opener, and then going black-lighting at night, like that was way cool, so I had to go black lighting.

Environmental Constraints

Definition: Something that stops the emergence of, reduces, or eliminates participation in environmental activities. Constraints can be within the individual, social pressures, or structural.

Additional notes: Competing forces in people’s lives reduce their ability to maintain an interest or obtain resources (time, money, social support, geography, laws, and policies) to participate in environmentally oriented activities. It is important to note, the life history data of highly successful environmentally oriented young people may not reveal much about constraints that hinder less successful environmentally oriented people.

Applications: Help participants and potential participants gather resources and find opportunities. Be conscious that the structure (when, where) of some program designs may be convenient for programmers, but not to potential participants; provide scholarships for children/youth participants in programs.

I had done a lot for the nature center, but the management just couldn’t pay me enough, so I had to end up giving it up and I made a decision to get contract work with Environment Canada.





Environmental Invitations

Definition: Friend or colleague extending a personal appeal for others to participate in an environmental opportunity.

Additional notes: We found invitations from others to be a common source in our data of introductory, extension, and expansion events.

Applications: Invite them! Keep databases or maintain social network sites for individuals with their corresponding interests.

I got hooked up with the Mycology Society through my boss (and professor). Like when we were in the Mycology class at the end of the semester she said, there’s a mushroom foray this weekend. Anyone who wants to come can come and I went and it was really fun.

Environmentally Monopolized

Definition: An environmental activity or activities that seem to dominate a person’s life for a few weeks to several years.

Additional notes: Two related phenomena were observed. The first involved parents who withdrew from society and home-schooled their children with an environmental focus. The second phenomenon was a period of time in which persons immersed themselves in studying or developing environmental skills or knowledge to the exclusion of most other activities.

Applications: Make staff available to mentor a child/youth who might be consumed by their environmental interest; provide materials that can be checked out.

Well it was about 10 years ago that I first started learning fire by friction and I failed miserably for many years, and at that time I started delving into shelter construction. I did all types of shelters. We had plenty of hay…. It grows in meadow areas across the creek and we built all kinds of shelters. Just about 10 years ago, I was in high school and when I got out of school I wouldn’t do any homework—I would just go straight to the woods. We had several miles of woods behind our house that went all the way to the river. I would go out there and spend pretty much all afternoon until dinner.

Time Alone in Nature

Definition: Using natural or interstitial areas to observe nature, reflect, introspect, or escape stress.

Applications: Teach observation skills (what and when observation skills); include some time in residential programs for time alone.

I craved having a brother or sister more than anything else. So it was a lonely childhood growing up, but like most kids they do stuff to keep themselves busy. That’s basically when my interest started. The first time I saw a snake in real life it was, “Wow…how do they move.?” (Participant often sat by a creek and observed nature after school while waiting for his parent to return home from work.)


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 57

Environmental Identity Formation. Persons begin to view themselves as environmentally oriented as they develop a robust set of environmental competencies, preferences, and values. A person who identifies to themselves and to others as a “birder” or amateur mycologist has developed an environmental identity (Clayton & Opotow, 2003). The critical incidents described within this category include: Environmental Crystallization, Environmental Identity, Environmental Occupation, Environmental Decision Points, Environmental Perseverance, and Unusual Interests. Definitions, applications, and supportive data can be found in Table 5. While we present the data in five discrete categories, it will be obvious to readers that there is overlap among several of the groupings.

Table 5: Domain: Environmental Identity FormationEnvironmental Socialization Terms/Definition/Notes


Environmental Crystallization

Definition: A point in time when a person realizes that at least one of his/her social identities is or will be environmental.

Additional note: These “aha” moments are the culmination of many experiences over time and an event or events that result in the person reflecting and accepting who they are and what they wish to become.

Applications: Incorporate awareness for career or vocation opportunities into programs through providing children and youth contact with professionals in natural resource positions.

Suggest to children and youth who demonstrate natural history competencies that they would be good at a particular career; make sure that children and youth know that there are career opportunities in these environmental areas.

I came here [zoo] as part of a program at [my university] so I had to spend an internship here. We had to work with macaws…and it took me the longest time to get the one I was working with to step on my hand. I was talking to the curator at the time about this problem. And he just said, “Well you’re probably the first black female she’s ever worked with….” Then I thought about it from her point of view and this kind of made me realize that there aren’t that many minorities in this field, and they have had her for seven years before I came here and to have that happen, you mean in all that time the macaw’s never seen or worked with anyone of a minority and it kind of made me go, “Gosh!” I think that also woke me up to what I chose to do eventually.





Environmental Identity

Definition: A robust and persistent recognition that an environmental interest defines the person.

Additional notes: (See Environmental Crystallization above as a related concept.)

Applications: Provide occupational role models for children and youth; suggest to participants that their interests could lead to environmental careers; use club-style programs to create groups of like-minded people; for teenagers, encourage volunteering or employment in adult roles related to the environment; provide souvenir clothing allowing interested persons to identify with each other.

So between architecture and marine biology, when I weighed the two, I could not get over the fact that marine biology was, that I couldn’t imagine my life without becoming a marine biologist. I wanted to take care of animals—fish. And I knew I didn’t want to be a veterinarian because it wasn’t just animals. I didn’t care about dogs and cats. I wanted to take care of fish—marine life—sea anemones and crabs and shrimp. You know, not training dolphins or killer whales. I didn’t care about that stuff. I want the fish stuff. The things that get overlooked.

Environmental Occupation

Definition: A volunteer or paid position that is or resembles an occupation held by adults.

Additional notes: Working in pet stores, being a camp counselor, or volunteering were the recurring examples in our data. For teenagers, receiving an adult-like reward (pay) for an environmental activity seemed to establish status and an emerging identity.

Applications: Provide job-like or mentor opportunities for teenage program participants; refer participants in programs to volunteer and employment opportunities; discuss personal agendas with participants and make sure they know there are environmental opportunities.

My high school was right next to this pet store and I would walk over there every day after school and say, “Can I have a job?” and one day the guy said, “Hey, do you want a job?” I ended up being one of his best employees ever. I made the guy a lot of money. I kind of picked up where he left off in husbandry with snakes back in like the ’70s because he focused more on fish an birds and all this. I was able to read modern books about how to breed these animals and reproduce them.


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 59



Environmental Decision Points

Definition: A point in a person’s life in which they must decide upon a course of action that move them toward or away from environmental roles.

Additional notes: These are pivotal points in a person’s life. Most of our data comes from the college years.

Applications: Use many of the other strategies described in this paper to increase a person’s environmental identity so that these decisions are easier to make.

Through school I always had an interest in the environment. When I hit college I always had this sort of plan. I was one of those funny people that I knew when I went to college what my major was going to be—it was going to be biology. So I went through that, but I always had this idea that I would go into some sort of medicine. My mother works in the medicine field. I always thought I would go into something like that until I took an ecology class…and all those ideas of organic farming and environmentalism kind of sprang back up. And from that I switched my concentration from a more pre-med course to an environmental side and decided I would pursue something with that. I got an internship in Florida that year to do work with insects and really haven’t looked back since.

Environmental Perseverance

Definition: Persevering at something environmental despite constraints.

Applications: Be supportive of talented people in difficult situations.

When I first started here [zoo], I used to do a lot of things with the media. My family would see me [on TV] and they would call my father and say, “What’s wrong with her? Is she nuts?” I have this snake on my hand and they don’t know why I’m doing this. “What is the point of what you’re doing? Why do you love it so much?” When I first came here I would drive from [name town] to here, what was an hour drive. I did that for three years. I was only here part-time. I think it’s like a teacher has that love for teaching. Not only do I need to do this to support my family, I love doing it.

Unusual Interests

Definition: Perception of the person that their natural history interests are not mainstream and subject to outgroup derogation.

Additional notes: Awareness that an interest is unusual may be an important source of a social identity. Also, persons with natural history interests develop judgment about whom to reveal their interests to in order to avoid ridicule.

Applications: Realizing that natural history interests are not mainstream, use club and social groups centered around a natural history interest to provide rewarding social interactions that are more rewarding than the social ridicule received from outside groups.

I think some people think my interest in insects is interesting while others think it is gross. When I came home from Chile, I ended up having a fly parasite inside my shoulder that was called a botfly. It took about 80 days for it to come out. All of my friends were like “Let me see it. How’s it doing today.” They’d make me pull my shirt back, it was on my shoulder, so they could see what it looked like. All the insect kids were totally into it, even though sometimes it was kind of gross because it would get bloody. People who thought it was disgusting thought I was disgusting. It was funny because people’s reactions ranged from total disgust to anger. Some people were mad that I brought it back because they thought it was going to infect everyone. I don’t know if I really liked the attention because a lot of people were grossed out, but it was just fun to show people.



Applications of ResultsMost of the ESP incident terms described in Tables 1–5 can be used as strategies by interpretive naturalists to help their audiences to persist with their natural history interests. Other ESP incidents are strategies that interpretive naturalists can teach others to implement. Historically, socialization around natural history has occurred by chance or because of self-motivation, through school curricula and encouragement from interested peers and adults who recognize an interest in natural history in young people. The environmental socialization model tells us that developing an identity around natural history requires repeated and diverse experiences with natural environmental within supportive social worlds. Interactions between interpretive naturalists and visitors that occur before, between, and after interpretive programs may be as important as program content. By finding and engaging with persons interested in natural history the interpreter can begin to be intentional in what use to be an almost serendipitous socialization process.

Programs provided by interpretive naturalists are far from being the only worthwhile experiences. An amorphous system of places, peers, teachers, summer camps, parents, parks, zoos, botanic gardens, clubs, scouts, etc. provide occasional opportunities for natural history experiences. Interpretive naturalists must be willing to promote opportunities, both formal and informal, outside of their organizations. For instance, if a nature center only provides summer nature camps up to age 11, there needs to be a strategy to find experiences somewhere else for children who are aging out of that summer program. In reverse, everyone from school teachers to summer camps needs to know that they can direct people with a relevant interest to a nature center or state park that can provide additional experiences through programs provided by interpretive naturalists. Interpreters may also increase opportunities for interactions between peers outside of their organization. For instance, helping children who have been involved in programs or clubs to visit with each other outside of the club can help establish friendships around natural history interests. Bronfenbrenner (1994) refers to these experiences as bi-directional influences in which the emotionally attached children, parents, and peers all influence each other.

Potential actions are not limited to the incidents listed in our tables. Interpretive naturalists should be able to readily recognize other opportunities beyond the concrete applications we have provided in the tables. For instance, after working with these data, one of us decided to ignore a wedding gifts registry for two friends with limited natural history backgrounds who were in entry-level general park ranger positions. Instead, they were gifted a library of natural history field guides appropriate for their region. As another example, in developing an astronomy program, we decided to send program participants a postcard every two months for 12 months after the program with one new star hop to a constellation for that season’s sky. This strategy extended the program, encouraging former program participants to look up at the night sky and learn (just) one new constellation every two months. Another one of us, having discovered the concept of emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2007), is rethinking the nature of entry-level interpretive positions. The theory of emerging adulthood, ascribed to 18- to 26-year-olds, argues that this age group is largely free from parental oversight but not yet married. They tend to view themselves as in a transient period of their life, neither teenager nor adult. In this transient period of experimentation with personal and professional roles, they are unlikely to stay in their first job for more than a year or two. This suggests that entry-


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 61

level interpretive positions could be reformulated as “apprenticeships” through which mentors help interpreters to develop their interpretive and natural history competencies while refining their skills in interpretation. As an apprentice, the individual would commit to working for two years and receive a lower salary in exchange for extensive mentoring, attending conferences, and taking courses at field biology stations in content areas where they are weak. As illustrated by these examples, interpretive naturalists are encouraged to take any opportunity they can imagine to extend and enrich a visitor’s experiences with natural history.

ConclusionThese three environmental socialization papers in combination indicate that the pathways to natural history require many complementary and additive experiences with natural history phenomena with social support for like minded persons. The importance of regular and repeated experiences is central to several generic socialization and educational theories (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Vygotsky, 1978). Any one natural history program is one of those experiences—but has lasting impact only if audience members continue on to other experiences. To accumulate the myriad of experiences requires that nature become part of the ebb and flow of a person’s everyday life (Bixler, 2001). A single program can serve as an introduction, extension, or expansion of a park visitor’s interests in natural history. Interpreters should view the time before and after the program and casual contacts at nature centers and parks as opportunities to implement environmental socialization strategies with their visitors. Likewise, interpretive naturalists play a role outside of work with their own families and in their own neighborhoods by communicating with school teachers and counselors, referring parents and children to traditional summer camp with nature study programs, guiding families to the better scout leader in their area, and knowing where there are universities with good field-oriented biology/geology/astronomy courses that budding naturalist could attend. If there is one larger concept that emerges from the environmental socialization project it is the importance of frequent and repeated experiences with nature within a supportive social world. We strongly encourage that as part of every program interpreters provide information to their audiences about how to extend the experience after the program. Just as a good interpreter develops transitions between subthemes within a program, they must also help audience members transition from program to program. We advocate for adding a formal “Program-to-Program Transition” (PTPT) component to interpretive program plans and that interpreters work to be especially cognizant of the range of local and regional opportunities for visitors to have further natural history opportunities inside and outside their organizations.

With the widespread use of relationship marketing by corporations in an experienced-based economy, we have little choice but to think beyond discrete programs if we wish to re-grow society’s interest in natural history—establishing the foundation for more people to enjoy natural history and gain an understanding of the value of biodiversity.

Technical Contribution No. 5966 of the Clemson University Experiment Station For further information about the environmental socialization project please contact Rob Bixler at [email protected].



ReferencesAmerican Museum of Natural History (1998). Biodiversity and the next millennium: A

nationwide survey. Nichols Hills, OK: Louis Harris.

Armatage, K. C. (2009). The Nature Study Movement: The Forgotten Popularizers of the America’s Conservation Ethic. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.

Arnett, J. J. (2007). Socialization in emerging adulthood: From the family to the wider world, from socialization to self socialization. In Joan E. Grusec & Paul D. Hastings (Eds.) Handbook of Socialization: Theory and Research (pp. 208-231). New York: Guilford Press.

Bell, A. (1997). Natural history from a learner’s perspective. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 2, 132-143.

Berry, L. L. (1995). Relationship marketing of services-growing interest, emerging perspectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 236-245.

Biodiversity Project (2002). Americans and biodiversity: New perspectives in 2002. Washington, DC: Beldon, Russonello and Stuart.

Bixler, R. D. (2001). Why we must ‘preach to the choir’. Legacy, 12, 33-34.

Bixler R. D., & Floyd, M. F. (1999). Hands on or hands off? Disgust sensitivity and preferences for environmental education activities. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3), 4-11.

Bixler, R. D., Floyd, M. F., & Hammitt, W. R. (2002). Environmental socialization: Quantitative tests of the childhood play hypothesis. Environment and Behavior, 34, 795-818.

Bixler, R. D., & James, J. J. (2005). Environmental Socialization: The Critical Peripheral? In W. L. Filho (Ed.) Handbook of Sustainability Research (pp.15-30). Peter Lang Scientific Publishing, Frankfurt.

Bixler R. D., & Morris, B. (2000). Factors differentiating water-based wildland recreationists from nonparticipants: Implications for recreation activity instruction. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 18, 54-72.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In International Encyclopedia of Education, Vol 3, 2nd ED. Oxford: Elsevier.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evans, G. W. (2000). Developmental science in the 21st Century: Emerging questions, theoretical models, research deisgns and empirical findings. Social Development, 9, 115-125.

Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Chawla, L. (1998). Research methods to investigate significant life experiences: Review and recommendations. Environmental Education Research, 4(4), 383-397.

Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into effective environmental action. Journal of Environmental Education, 31, 15-26.


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 63

Clayton, S., & Opotow, S. (Eds.) (2003). Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Clowse, B. B. (1981). Brainpower for the cold war: The Sputnik crisis and national defense education act of 1958. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

Cotterill, F. P. D., & Foissner, W. (2010). A pervasive denigration of natural history misconstrues how biodiversity inventories and taxonomy underpin scientific knowledge. Biodiversity Conservation, 19, 291-303.

DeYoung, R. (2000). Expanding and evaluating motives for environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 509-526.

Ditton, R. B., Loomis, D. K. & Choi, S. (1992). Recreation specialization: Re-conceptualization from a social worlds perspective. Journal of Leisure Research 24, 33-51.

Dunlap, R. E., & Heffernan, R. B. (1975). Outdoor recreation and environmental concern: An empirical examination. Rural Sociology, 40, 18-30.

Grant, P. R. (2010). What does it mean to be a naturalist at the end of the Twentieth Century? The American Naturalist, 155, 1-12.

Gropp, D. (2003). Perspectives threatened species: University natural science collections in the United States. Systematics and Biodiversity, 1(3), 285-286.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, Illinois: Adeline.

Holden, C. (1989). Entomologists wane as insects wax. Science, 246, 754(3).

Holstermann, N., Grube, D., & Bogeholz, S. (2009). Influence of emotion on students’ performance in dissection exercises. Journal of Biological Education, 43(4), 164-168.

James, J. J., Bixler, R. D., & Vadala, C. E. (2010). From play in nature to recreation, then vocation: A developmental model for natural history oriented environmental professionals. Children, Youth and Environments, 20 231-256.

Kohlstedt, S. G. (2005). Nature, not books: Scientists and the origins of the nature-study movement in the 1890s. Isis, 96(3), 324-352.

Lauer, H. (2006). New Americans: Defining ourselves through sports and fitness participation. Courtland, NY: American Sports Data.

Louv, R. (2005). Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books.

Molise, R. (2006). The Urban Astronomer’s Guide: A Walking Tour of the Cosmos for City Sky Watchers. London: Springer.

Palmer, J. A. (1993). Development of concern for the environment and formative experiences of educators. The Journal of Environmental Education, 24, 26-30.

Palmer, J. A., Suggare, J. Bajd, B., Hart, P., Ho, R. K. P., Ofwono-Orecho, J. K. W., Peries, M.; Robottom, I. Tsaliki, E., & Van Staden, C. (1998). An overview of significant influences and formative experiences on the development of adults’ environmental awareness in nine countries. Environmental Education Research, 4, 445-464.



Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The Experience Economy: Work is theater and every business a stage. Cambridge: Harvard Business Press.

Pyle, R. M. (2009). Beauty of butterfly nets. Wings: Essays on Invertebrate Conservation, Spring, 15-18.

Saylan, C. T., & Blumstein, D. T. (2011). The Failure of Environmental Education and How We Can Fix It. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. Fort Worth TX: Harcourt College Publishers.

Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424.

Strauss, A. C., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schultz, P. W., & Tabaniko, T. (2007). Self, identity, and the natural environment: Exploring implicit connections with nature. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(6), 1219-1247.

Tanner, T. (1980). Significant life experiences: A new research area in environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 11, 20-24.

Tiesl, M. F., & O’Brien, K. (2003). Who cares and who acts: Outdoor recreationists exhibit different levels of environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 35, 506-522.

Vadala, C. E., Bixler, R. D., & James, J. J. (2007). Childhood play and environmental interests: Panacea or snake oil? The Journal of Environmental Education, 39, 3-18.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge MA: Harvard University.

Weilbacher, M. (1993). “The Renaissance of the naturalist”. Journal of Environmental Education, 25, 4-7.

Wells, N. M., & Lekies, K. S. (2006). Nature and the life course: Pathways from childhood nature experiences to adult environmentalism. Children, Youth and Environment, 16 (1), 1-24.

Woodland, D. W. (2007). Are botanists becoming the dinosaurs of biology in the 21st Century. South African Journal of Botany, 73, 343-346.


IN SHORT

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Live Interactive Virtual Explorations Involving a Hard-to-Reach Native American Earth Lodge and a Pacific Island Volcanoes Site

Kimberly Mann BruchUniversity of California at San DiegoSan Diego Supercomputer CenterUSA

Hans-Werner BraunUniversity of California at San DiegoSan Diego Supercomputer CenterUSA

Susan TeelNational Park ServiceSouthern California Research Learning CenterUSA

AbstractFor several years, National Park Service scientists, historians, and educators have been working with National Science Foundation-funded High Performance Wireless Research and Education Network (HPWREN) researchers on developing, implementing, and evaluating Live Interactive Virtual Explorations (LIVE) at several sites. The LIVE activities utilize computers with headsets and microphones to link National Park Service sites with an array of audiences. The two case studies in this paper examine the effectiveness of LIVE activities that allow Washington, DC, inner-city youth to explore two hard-to-reach National Park Service sites: Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site in North Dakota and the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park.

Literature ReviewDistance learning research studies range from examinations of how users learn during online collaborative education experiences to the role of online discussions in virtual classrooms. The work of Dewiyanti, Brand-Gruwel, Jochems, and Broers (2007) shows that many students are more likely to ask questions by email when enrolled in an online


collaborative course versus a traditional classroom course. Research findings of Kester, van Rosmalen, Sloep, Brouns, Kone, and Kpoer (2007) also shows an increase in class participation—specifically online discussion forums. Offir, Lev, and Bezalel (2007), however, posit that a traditional classroom allows for the presence of a teacher that is needed for most types of learners. Tan, Liu, and Chang (2007) conclude that hybrid instruction (combining traditional classroom experiences with remote outdoor learning) allows for an integrated approach not possible to achieve in traditional classroom environments. Bruch, Braun, and Teel (2010) agree that combined learning experiences are ideal and specifically study the value of having an educator at both the student and presenter sites of remote learning activities.

Background Visits to National Park Service (NPS) sites provide both adults and youth with opportunities to explore an array of unique, historic, and scientific areas throughout the country. The interpretation provided by on-site NPS staff allows the LIVE visitors to understand the virtual site and realize the importance of these protected areas. This paper examines technology that provides access for citizens to experience far-away NPS sites without leaving their area. Specifically, the researchers are developing, implementing, and evaluating distance education technology and interpretation techniques between NPS sites and distant visitors.

Figure 1: The Department of Interior Main Interior Building Sidney Yates Auditorium allowed a Diversity Days event audience to explore hard-to-reach National Park Service sites via Live Interactive Virtual Explorations (LIVE).

k i m b e r ly m a n n b r u c h, h a n s-w e r n e r b r a u n, s u s a n t e e l

v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 69

For two days in October 2010, federal employees and members of the general public participated in virtual visits to eight NPS sites via Live Interactive Virtual Explorations (LIVE) activities at the Department of Interior (DOI) Main Interior Building in Washington, DC. The LIVE activities were held in conjunction with the DOI Diversity Days event, and allowed the audience to experience hard-to-reach, culturally diverse sites throughout the country and interact with NPS ranges without leaving the city of Washington, DC. Diversity Days participants at the DOI Building included a group of inner-city youth, while participating NPS sites included the Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site in North Dakota and the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. The DOI site utilized a laptop computer connected to the auditorium’s audio speakers and video system, which included four plasma screens dispersed throughout the room and one large projection screen located on the front stage (Figure 1). The Knife River and Hawaii Volcanoes sites park rangers were able to connect their laptops to the DOI laptop through Internet-enabled freeware that allows for real-time bi-directional video and audio.

Case Study: Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site Located in rural North Dakota, the Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site pays tribute to the Mandan and Hidatsa peoples, who had permanent villages of earth lodge dwellings in the area during the 1800s. The technology used for the LIVE activity between the Washington, DC, participants and the Knife River park rangers included

Figure 2: The Knife River activity took place inside a Native American Earth Lodge and was opened with an introduction to the site by an NPS interpretive ranger. Following the presentation, another NPS ranger sang a traditional chant accompanied by a Native American instrument.

e va l u at i n g t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f l i v e i n t e r a c t i v e v i r t u a l e x p l o r at i o n s


a laptop computer equipped with a built-in microphone, web camera, and freeware (Google video chat). Both video and audio quality were evaluated and the majority of participants agreed that both were good. During the hour-long presentation, the park rangers remained in the earth lodge and one of them demonstrated a Native American chant accompanied by a Native American instrument. The LIVE activities between the NPS interpretive rangers and the audience sparked a lively question and answer session. Inquiries included, “What type of trading took place between the Native Americans and the settlers in the 1800s?” and, “What are the artifacts in the earth lodge used for?”

CASE STUDY: Hawaii Volcanoes National ParkFollowing the Knife River earth lodge LIVE activity, the audience was taken on a similar trip to the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, where presenters were situated overlooking a smoking volcano and welcomed the audience in DC to the island with a Native chant. Following this opening, rangers introduced the park and engaged the audience, focusing on explanations regarding volcanoes in the area. Questions posed by the DC participants included “Can you feel earthquakes?” and “Have you ever stepped in hot lava?”

The technology used for the LIVE activity between the Washington, DC, participants and the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park rangers consisted of a laptop computer with external audio headset/microphone and video camera. Skype, a freeware program, was used for the point-to-point, real-time video and audio. Both video and audio quality were evaluated and the majority of participants agreed that both were good.

Figure 3: The Hawaii Volcanoes National Park LIVE welcome chant took place as the sun rose over smoking volcanoes.


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 71

Methods and ResultsPermission to collect participant data was granted to researchers, including the authors, by the Human Subjects Research Program, at the University of California–San Diego. Data was collected through Likert-scale surveys in October 2010 directly following the Diversity Days event. The population consisted of 61 middle-school students (43 females and 18 males); ages ranged from 12-years-old to 15-years-old.

Eighty percent (49 of 61) of the participants agreed that “the information was presented effectively by the presenters” while 79 percent (48 of 61) said, “I learned a lot.” Sixty-two percent (38 of 61) said, “I would recommend LIVE activities to others,” and 64 percent (39 of 61) said, “I want to go visit the site in person now.”

Discussion and Further Research NeedsDuring both LIVE activities, participants engaged with the remote presenter and asked an array of questions as described in the Case Study sections of this paper. The audio was very clear and while video was sufficient, it was not broadcast quality and sometimes appeared blurry (as shown in the figures). To enhance future events, researchers are examining additional software options to improve the video quality and also considering the implementation of hands-on manipulatives for LIVE participants to utilize before, during, and/or after the remote tour and discussion. For instance, a duplicate of the Native American instrument would serve as a hands-on tool for participants to experiment with, after the chant via LIVE technology. The remote park ranger might even be able to informally instruct the participants on how to conduct their own music and chant via the LIVE technology—if enough instruments were available at the education site. Additional possibilities include archiving the LIVE activities so that the participating parks can incorporate them into their web portals for viewing by website users.

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank James Hale and Pablo Bryant for their imaginative technical expertise in support of LIVE activities. Many information technology and network security staff worked long hours to reconfigure the DOI network to enable these programs; in particular, we would like to recognize Chad Piazza, Shane Compton, and Mike Maki with the National Park Service and Mike Mason, Roger Daniel, and Darrell Westbrook with the National Business Center Main Interior Building. The LIVE event from Hawaii Volcanoes was made possible by Mardie Lane, Wolfie Thomas, Jason Zimmer, and Kupono McDaniel while LIVE from Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site was made possible by Craig Hansen and Loren Yellow Bird. John Burden (DOI) and Sharon Eller (DOI) we thank for the invitation and support of our participation in Diversity Days 2010.

ReferencesBruch, K.M., Braun, H-W., & Teel, S. (2010). Live Interactive Virtual Explorations via

the High Performance Wireless Research and Education Network. In S. Mukerji (Ed.), Cases on Technological Adaptability and Transnational Learning: Issues and Challenges. Pennsylvania: IGI Global, 311-332.

Dewiyanti, S., Brand-Gruwel, S., Jochems, W., & Broers, N. (2007). Students’ experiences with collaborative learning in asynchronous computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 496-514.

e va l u at i n g t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f l i v e i n t e r a c t i v e v i r t u a l e x p l o r at i o n s


Kester, L., van Rosmalen, P., Sloep, P., Brouns, F., Kone, M., & Koper, R. (2007). Matchmaking in learning networks: Bringing learners together for knowledge sharing. Interactive Learning Environments, 15, 117-126.

Offir, B., Lev, Y., & Bezalel, R. (2007). Surface and deep learning processes in distance education: Synchronous versus asynchronous systems. Computers and Education, 51(3), 1172-1183.

Tan, T-H., Liu, T-Y., & Chan, C-C. (2007). Development and evaluation of an RFID-based ubiquitous learning environment for outdoor learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 15, 253-269.


Interpretive effectiveness at Kanha Tiger Reserve, India

Gregory M. BentonAssistant Professor of Recreation and Sport ManagementDepartment of Health, Human Performance, and Recreation308Q HPER BuildingUniversity of ArkansasFayetteville, AR [email protected]: 479-575-4110Fax: 479-575-5778

Bitapi C. SinhaProfessor, Wildlife Institute of IndiaP.O. Box 18Chandrabani, [email protected]: +91-1352640112Fax: +91-1352640117

AbstractThe first study of interpretation in India examined the effectiveness of interpretive facilities and exhibits to convey interpretive conservation messages. Kanha Tiger Reserve features a large budget, advanced technology, and international visitation. The single-case, multiple-methods approach examined visitor knowledge and behavior regarding exhibits. Pre- and post-program surveys, video observation of visitor flow through the interpretive center, and the readability of text were analyzed. Results from the survey indicate that visitor knowledge increased in spite of noise in the center. Video observation data suggests that visitor interest measured by attention index and holding power were greatest for the management related exhibits and decreased as participants moved further into the interpretive center. Images of tigers were found to be more important for attraction and holding power than the center’s advanced floor light panels and other interpretive techniques. Dioramas, maps, and models were favored over text by visitors for readability.


Keywordseffectiveness, knowledge, attraction, holding power, readability, exhibits

IntroductionIndia is in the process of improving wildlife conservation efforts at a number of tiger reserves throughout the country. The country of India is a relative newcomer to the global community of formal interpretation and yet is experiencing growing pains common to parks and protected areas around the world—how to effectively communicate their conservation mission to audiences. This is a significant global issue due to the conflict arising between local residents whose livelihoods are often threatened by the removal of large carnivore habitat for conservation and tourists’ perceptions of wildlife (Ericsson, Bostedt, & Kindberg, 2008; Sekhar, 2003; Wondrak, 2002).

The study began with the research question: Do interpretation centers help in learning about tiger conservation? This question underlies a larger issue frequently encountered regarding interpretation centers: How important is a large budget in conveying interpretive conservation messages? The Kanha Tiger Reserve was chosen for the case study because it has the largest budget and most sophisticated interpretive center in the country. The purpose of the study was to examine the effectiveness of the interpretive facility and exhibits at Kanha to convey interpretive tiger conservation messages to audiences. Researchers hypothesized that evidence of successful communication and learning through multiple methods would indicate effectiveness of interpretation to convey conservation messages.

Literature Review

Effectiveness to improve knowledge and attitudeScholars and practitioners have been articulating and examining interpretation’s role in improving visitors’ knowledge, appreciation, and attitude toward protected sites for many years (Beck & Cable, 2002; Brochu & Merriman, 2002; Falk & Dierking, 2000; Ham, 1992; Knapp, 2007; Knudson, Cable, & Beck, 2003; Moscardo, 1996; Sharpe, 1976; Tilden, 1957; Ward & Wilkinson, 2006). The methods used for assessing visitor knowledge gain or learning at the Kanha Tiger Reserve study were pre- and post-visit surveys. Madin and Fenton (2004) explored interpretation programs at the Great Barrier Reef for evidence of effective education of visitors regarding the site and conservation issues. The authors found through pre-trip and post-trip questionnaires an increase in knowledge and understanding. Zeppel and Muloin (2008) examined marine wildlife encounters and the interpretation mediating those experiences. They found that interpretation conveyed subject knowledge to visitors and provided some evidence of visitor intention to support and engage in marine conservation action (Zeppel & Muloin, 2008). Researchers seeking evidence of improved knowledge, attitudes, and behavior at the Galapagos Islands used a questionnaire to probe visitors for self-reports of satisfaction, knowledge increase, behavior, and likelihood of pro-conservation behavior (Powell & Ham, 2008). The study examined one tour operator’s tour design and interpretive program and found an increase in knowledge, in supportive attitudes for resource management related to the site, and in behavioral intention and increased philanthropic support for conservation.

g r e g o r y m. b e n t o n, b i ta p i c . s i n h a

v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 75

Attention in exhibits and signageNon-personal interpretive services are the primary means of communication of resources in museums, zoos, aquaria, and visitor centers. In a study more focused on the visitor center, pre- and post-visit surveys indicated that interpretation increased visitor knowledge and achieved limited attitude change, and the interactive material was important to visitors (Tubb, 2003). Researchers examined whether multiple layers of interpretation contributed to positive visitor outcomes in zoos. Weiler and Smith conducted a post-visit survey of visitors to a lion exhibit to investigate the relationship between levels of exposure to media regarding the difficulties lions have with humans and visitor’s intellectual and emotional connections resulting from interpretive experience (2009). The authors found that for every one of the ten indicators, more levels of media corresponded to greater reported outcomes in cognition, affect, and behavior. Wells (2000) combined the use of a questionnaire and observations at a visitor center in a state park to examine variables related to attention and exhibit holding power. The study found the average holding time of exhibits varied from 15 to 186 seconds with the highest holding time belonging to touch-screen video exhibits (2000, p. 61). Hall, Ham, and Lackey (2010) examined the ability of four different types of signs to capture visitors’ attention at Yellowstone National Park. Vivid information and novel design and are two suggested methods discussed in that study (p.17).

Readability of written textStudies in medical and related research areas have identified the Flesch Reading Ease Score or Flesch Index (Flesch, 1948) as a prominent measure of the ease with which people can read and understand written material. The medical field has examined readability in appointment letters (Bennett & Gilchrist, 2010), overeaters anonymous educational material (Walfish & Pinholster, 2008), informed consent for psychotherapy treatment (Walfish & Ducey, 2007), and informed consent in general research (Ogloff & Otto, 1991). A meta-analysis of 12 different readability scores applied to nine texts found the Flesch Index to be the most desirable measure because it can be gathered without affecting the subjects (Wagenaar, Schreuder, & Wijlhuizen, 1987).

Study SiteThe Kanha Tiger Reserve is located in the middle of the state of Madhya Pradesh and its capital city is Bhopal. Visitation nearly tripled over nine years (2001–2009) from 55,305 to 133,507. The interpretation center (IC) contains four halls arranged roughly in an inverted “U” shape. Visitors enter at one end and pass through each hall in linear fashion. An auditorium lies at the other end and visitors not wishing to attend the auditorium program must return by the same route. Each hall contained a theme in the following order: monsoons, history and management, places of interest, and relocation.

MethodThe approach used for this study was threefold; surveys gathered visitor self-reports, video cameras recorded visitor behavior at exhibits, and readability of exhibit text was examined. The first research question was, Are visitors gaining knowledge and improving their attitude after being exposed to interpretive messages? A questionnaire garnered visitors’ demographic characteristics: knowledge, affect, and impressions of interpretive media. The second research question was, Which exhibits are most

i n t e r p r e t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s at k a n h a t i g e r r e s e r v e


successful at drawing and holding visitors in terms of time and clustering of people? Visitor temporal and spatial behavior toward exhibits was recorded by video camera and analyzed. The third research question was, What types of exhibits have the highest readability according to the Flesch Index? Visual and textural characteristics of the exhibit panels were assessed for readability. This threefold approach was designed to better capture the complex contextual environment of the interpretive experience. None of these methods are remarkable by themselves. However, the importance of triangulating “multiple sources of evidence is the development of converging lines of inquiry” (Yin, 2003, p. 98).

Pre- and post-visit surveys were distributed to visitors entering and exiting the exhibit hall at the Kanha interpretive center. To avoid a learning effect, post-visit surveys were distributed and collected from different visitors than those who completed pre-visit surveys. Accordingly, 150 pre- and 150 post-visit surveys were distributed and 93 pre-visit and 107 post-visit surveys were collected and analyzed. Demographic data was gathered for nationality, previous visitation, occupation, age, education, and gender. Knowledge gain was assessed by asking visitors six questions that the researcher established should be understood by a majority of the visitors after viewing the four exhibit halls in the interpretive center. The questions were informed by the themes portrayed in particular visits and were consistent with the objectives of the facility. Finally, general impressions were assessed by asking three questions: Was the experience informative?, Did visitors learn from the center?, and, Was their experienced diminished by crowding and noise?

Five video cameras were used to collect a variety of data regarding visitor interaction with exhibits. Every fifth visitor regardless of age or sex was tracked through the series of exhibits halls in the IC. A total of 69 visitors were observed and recorded over the course of five days. The parameters examined were time spent at each exhibit, total time spent at the IC, attraction index, and holding power. Attraction index is calculated by dividing the number of visitors stopped at a particular exhibit by the number of visitors observing the exhibit itself. The attraction index measures the extent to which the people in front of an exhibit are actually examining its structure, images, and text and is a value from 0 to 1. A low value represents a low attraction producing exhibit. Holding power is calculated by dividing the average time spent at an exhibit by the time necessary to read the text. The holding power measures the relative concentration put forth by visitors to adequately receive the emotional and cognitive stimuli from the exhibit and is a value from 0 to 1.8. A low value represents less time spent at the exhibit.

The Flesch Index of Reading Ease is a scale used to analyze the readability of written information in any document. It is a composite measure that provides a range of values between 0 and 100 to indicate the ease or difficulty in reading text. The Flesch Index is calculated by multiplying the average number of syllables per 100 words by the average sentence length (in words). The lower the index or score of a text, the more difficult it is to read and understand. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level assigns an education grade level to the corresponding passage of text. For each of the four halls, the attraction index, holding power, Flesch readability, score and Flesch-Kincaid Grade level were calculated and analyzed.


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 77

Results

Visitor surveyThree types of data were gathered from the survey: demographic characteristics, knowledge gain, and general impressions. The demographic characteristics of the combined pre- and post-visit survey (n=200) of visitors at the Kanha Interpretive Center indicate that 80% were from India and 20% were foreign. Only 10% of the visitors were returning after a previous visit. Every age group was represented with the highest proportion of visitors in the 26- to 35-year-old range (36%). In terms of education, 61% had some college and 19% had post-graduate education. Males outnumbered females at the center 64% to 36% respectively. Six questions were posed to visitors to assess knowledge gain. Increases in visitor knowledge between pre-visit and post-visit samples were reported in the areas of geography (rivers) 30%, wildlife 35%, and tribal culture 61%. In terms of overall impression, 83% of visitors indicated the exhibit hall was informative, 63% reported that they learned from the experience, and 65% indicated that they were disturbed by the crowd and noise in the center.

Visitor observationThe second approach examined visitor behavior towards exhibits using video cameras to gather three types of data: average time spent at exhibits, attraction index (0–1), and holding power (0–1.8). The Monsoon Hall was first and had the lowest average viewing time per exhibit but its diorama yielded the highest attraction index (.52) in the exhibit hall. The History Hall was second and demonstrated a higher average viewing time and its management exhibit had the highest average viewing time of 70 seconds. The History Hall’s exhibits contained several full-color images of tigers. Furthermore, a three-dimensional display of a family of tigers was located in the middle of the floor. The Places of Interest Hall was third in progression. The most prominent characteristic detected was the diorama’s prominent average viewing time of 70 seconds. The diorama also drew the third-highest attraction index (.36) in the exhibit hall. The Relocation: Then and Now Hall was the fourth and last hall in the sequence. This hall garnered high average viewing times, especially for the first exhibit and the diorama. The relocation diorama also received the second-highest attraction index (.48). Regression analysis of attraction index and holding power yielded R2 = 0.7313 with F = 27.836 and p = 0.001, indicating a moderate relationship between the two indicators of visitors’ temporal and mental investment in the interpretive experience at the exhibit hall.

ReadabilityThe calculation of the readability of text using the Flesch Reading Ease Index produces a value from 0 to 100, with low scores representing the most difficult to read. The Flesch Index is followed by the associated Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. In the Monsoon Hall, the Flesch indices ranged from 41.30 (college) level in the last exhibit to 60.00–66.93 (eighth to ninth grade) for the first three exhibits. In the History Hall, the highest Flesch score was 51.03 (tenth to twelfth grade) with the four other exhibits ranging from 29.63 (graduate), to 39.56–41.88 (college). The Places of Interest Hall exhibits were calculated at 51.48 (high school) and 44.49 (college) levels. The single exhibit in the Relocation: Then and Now exhibit hall had a Flesch score of 31.89 (college) level.



DiscussionThis study examined the effectiveness of interpretation to convey conservation messages using multiple methods; a visitor survey, video camera observation of visitors, and calculation of readability (visitors as readers of text). Pre and post visit surveys indicate that visitors experienced gains in knowledge even amidst reports of excessive noise and crowding in the IC. Similar findings of improved attitude and knowledge from visitor engagement with interpretive exhibits have been reported (Bitgood, 2000; Hughes & Saunders, 2005; Tubb, 2003; Weiler & Smith, 2009; Wells, 2000). The six questions measuring visitor knowledge were based on relevant themes portrayed in the exhibit hall and were crafted by a researcher familiar with the culture and geographical context of the park. If knowledge gain is to be considered an antecedent to conservation and responsible environmental behavior (Hwang, Kim, & Zheng, 2000; Knapp, 1996), then the finding of improved visitor knowledge is one indication of the effectiveness of interpretation to convey conservation messages to audiences.

Visitor surveys were followed by video observation of visitor traffic flow in the exhibit hall. Data analyzed from this viewpoint afforded researchers a glimpse into visitors’ temporal behavior and attention providing insight into opportunities for emotional and cognitive connection with conservation messages. The type of exhibit was analyzed alongside the magnitude of the two variables: attraction index and holding power. The first conclusion drawn from the four exhibit halls is that it seems that a simple and vivid display is needed to grab visitor attention. The dioramas in the three exhibits halls in which they were featured garnered the greatest attraction index of any type of exhibit. A low attraction index indicates that visitors choose quickly whether a display grabbed their attention or not. The choice whether to remain and further experience the exhibit would also include static or interactive aspects of the display. “The ideal static exhibit might be characterized particularly as being eye-catching and dramatic, whereas the ideal participatory exhibit would also of necessity ‘involve you’ (Alt & Shaw, 1984, p. 34).” The second conclusion is that ample holding power may result from emotional and cognitive interest in the topic or may be the result of difficulty in comprehending the text. The exhibits with the greatest holding power were found to be those consisting of images of tigers with and without moderate amounts of text. A similar study conducted in Yosemite National Park examined attention and holding power of different types of outdoor signs concerning human and bear interactions. Hall, Ham, and Lackey (2010) found “highly variable attracting power and holding times for the different messages across locations” (p. 15).

Finally, the third source of data, Flesch Readability scores and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Levels were analyzed and findings offer further explanation of visitor behavior. The first exhibit hall, the Monsoon Hall, was the space with the lowest Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level (eighth to ninth grade) and yet the attraction indices and holding power were also relatively low. The second, third, and fourth halls were predominantly assessed at a college grade reading level. The most salient finding was from the History Hall (second) and its five exhibit panels. It offered a college grade reading level and somewhat difficult Flesch readability scores, it had no maps or dioramas, but it had images of tigers and was found to have the highest attraction index and holding power overall. This finding suggests that visitors were investing adequate interest and mental investment associated with receiving conservation messages contained therein.


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 79

ConclusionResearchers hypothesized that evidence of successful communication and learning through multiple methods would indicate effectiveness of interpretation to convey conservation messages. An examination of three sources of evidence from visitors to the Kanha Tiger Reserve revealed that visitors’ knowledge improved, visitors reported having learned, and visitors spent time and effort experiencing the exhibit halls conservation messages. Two-dimensional and three-dimensional images of the iconic tiger were found to be among the most effective contextual factors that attracted and held visitor attention in the IC exhibit halls. This single case study joins a growing body of applied research studies attempting to link the chain of cognitive stimuli that are integral to the interpretive experience. Scholars have examined and strengthened the relationships among several variables and antecedents to conservation-oriented and environmentally responsible behavior (Rodger, Moore & Newsome, 2007; Zeppel & Muloin, 2008; Powell & Ham, 2008; Weiler & Smith, 2009; Tubb, 2003; Madin & Fenton, 2004; Hwang et al., 2000; Hughes & Saunders, 2005). Further investigation of the relationships and subsequent influences among the variables related to the interpretive experience will continue to move our understanding forward to inform the choice, placement, and design of interpretive exhibits. Before we can hope for positive changes in behavior, visitors must be drawn and held to messages through compelling images and readable text.

ReferencesAlt, M. B., & Shaw, K. M. (1984). Characteristics of ideal museum exhibits. British

Journal of Psychology, 75, 25-36.

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

Bennett, D. M., & Gilchrist, A. (2010). Readability of standard appointment letters. Mental Health in Family Medicine, 7, 101-106.

Brochu, L., & Merriman, T. (2002). Personal interpretation: Connecting your audience to heritage resources. Fort Collins, CO: Interp Press.

Ericsson, G., Bostedt, G., & Kindberg, J. (2008). Wolves as a symbol of people’s willingness to pay for large carnivore conservation. Society and Natural Resources, 21, 4, 294-309.

Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.

Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221-233.

Hall, T. E., Ham, S. H. & Lackey, B. K. (2010). Comparative evaluation of the attention capture and holding power of novel signs aimed at park visitors. Journal of Interpretation Research, 15, 1, 15-36.

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



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

Hwang, Y. H., Kim, S. I., & Jeng, J. M. (2000). Examining the causal relationships among selected antecedents of responsible environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Education, 31(4): 19-25.

Knapp, D. (2007). Applied interpretation: Putting research into practice. Fort Collins, CO: InterpPress.

Knapp, D. (1996). Evaluating the impact of environmental interpretation: A review of three research studies (Report No. RC-021-216). Bradford Woods, IN: Coalition for Education in the Outdoors Research Symposium. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED413132).

Knudson, D. M., Cable, T. T., & Beck, L. (2003). Interpretation for the 21st century (2nd ed.). State College, PA: Venture.

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

Moscardo, G. M. (1996). Mindful visitors. Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 2, 376-397.

Ogloff, J. R. P., & Otto, R. K. (1991). Are research participants truly informed? Readability of informed consent forms used in research. Ethics & Behavior, 1, 4, 239-252.

Powell, R., & Ham, S. (2008). Can ecotourism interpretation really lead to pro-conservation knowledge, attitudes and behavior? Evidence from the Galapagos Islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16, 4, 467-489.

Rodger, K., Moore, S. A., & Newsome, D. (2007). Wildlife tours in Australia: Characteristics, the place of science and sustainable futures. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(2), 160-179.

Sekhar, N. U. (2003). Local people’s attitudes towards conservation and wildlife tourism around Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Environmental Management 69, 339-347.

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

Tilden, F. (1957). Interpreting our heritage. Chapel Hill, NC: 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, 476-498.

Wagenaar, W. A., Schreuder, R., & Wijlhuizen, G. J. (1987). Readability of instructional text, written for the general public. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 155-167.

Walfish, S., & Ducey, B. B. (2007). Readability level of health insurance portability and accountability act notices of privacy practices used by psychologists in clinical practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 2, 203-207.


v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 81

Walfish, S., & Pinholster, K. (2008). Primary level of overeaters anonymous primary educational material. Eating Disorders, 16, 212-216.

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

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

Wells, M. (2000). Summative evaluation of Golden Gate Canyon State Park Visitor Center. Journal of Interpretation Research, 5, 2, 59-64.

Wondrak, A. K. (2002). Seen any wildlife? Community conflict and a struggle for the soul of Estes Park, Colorado. Cultural Geographies, 9, 68-94.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Zeppel, H., & Muloin, S. (2008). Conservation benefits of interpretation on marine wildlife tours. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 13, 280-294.


APPENDI X

Manuscript SubmissionInstructions to Authors

PurposeThe purposes of the Journal of Interpretation Research are to communicate original empirical research dealing with heritage interpretation and to provide a forum for scholarly discourse about issues facing the profession of interpretation. The Journal strives to link research with practice. The Journal of Interpretation Research is published by the National Association for Interpretation, the preeminent professional association representing the heritage interpretation profession.

General InformationThe primary function of the Journal is to disseminate original empirical research regarding interpretation. However, the Journal of Interpretation Research takes a broad view of the field of interpretation and publishes manuscripts from a wide-range of academic disciplines. The primary criteria for deeming a manuscript appropriate for the Journal are whether it adds to the current state-of-knowledge for practitioners, researchers, academics, or administrators who work in the field of interpretation.

In recognition of how diverse the relevant literature is, the Journal will also publish reviews of recent books, government publications, original literature reviews, and bibliographies dealing with interpretation. Abstracts from dissertations, private consultant materials, and reports from public agencies will be published in the Journal in a section called “In Short: Reports and Reviews.” This section will also provide an outlet for summaries of research studies with limited scope. Interpretation research often consists of small “in-house” program evaluations and basic visitor studies. The purpose of this section is to communicate current research activities, allow readers to identify colleagues with similar interests, and provide practitioners and administrators with useful information and direction for conducting their own mini-research projects. Submissions for the “In Short: Reports and Reviews” section should be limited to 800 to 1,000 words and will be reviewed by the editor and two associate editors.

Additionally, the Journal will publish thought pieces that exhibit excellence and offer original or relevant philosophical discourse on the state of heritage interpretation. The “In My Opinion” section of the Journal encourages the development of the profession and the practice of interpretation by fostering


discussion and debate. Submissions for the “In My Opinion” section should be limited to 1,000 to 1,200 words and will be reviewed by the editor and two associate editors.

Research Manuscript Submission GuidelinesAll research manuscripts will be reviewed anonymously by an associate editor and by at least two other reviewers. Based on the nature of the manuscript, special efforts will be made to identify well-qualified associate editors and reviewers to evaluate the manuscripts. From the recommendations of the associate editor, the editor will make the final decision of the manuscript’s disposition and communicate this information to the author.

ManuscriptsManuscripts will be accepted with the understanding that their content is unpublished and not being submitted elsewhere for publication.

• Allpartsofthemanuscript,includingtitlepage,abstract,tables,andlegends,shouldbe typed in 12-point font, and double-spaced on one side of 8.5" x 11" or A4 white paper.

• Marginsshouldbe1"onallsides.

• Manuscriptpagesshouldbenumberedconsecutivelyinthetoprightcorner.

• AllpapersmustbesubmittedinEnglish.Translationsofpaperspreviouslypublished in other languages will be considered for publication, but the author must supply this information when the manuscript is submitted.

• Maximumlengthofmanuscriptsshallbe30double-spacedpages(includingalltext, figures, tables, and citations). The editor will consider longer manuscripts on an individual basis.

TitlesMust be as brief as possible (six to 12 words). Authors should also supply a shortened version of the title, suitable for the running head, not exceeding 50 character spaces.

AffiliationOn the title page include full names of authors, academic, and/or other professional affiliations, and the complete mailing address of the author to whom proofs and correspondence should be sent. An e-mail address and phone and fax numbers should also be included. As all manuscripts will be reviewed anonymously; the name(s) of the author(s) should only appear on the title page.

AbstractEach paper should be summarized in an abstract of no more than 150 words. The abstract will preface the paper and should be a comprehensive summary of the paper’s content, including the purpose or problem, methods, findings, and implications or applications. It should enable the reader to determine exactly what the paper is about and make an informed decision about whether to read the entire paper. Abbreviations and references to the text should be avoided. All abstracts shall be listed on the Journal of Interpretation Research Web site (www.interpnet.com/JIR).

a p p e n d i x

v o l u m e 16, n u m b e r 1 87

KeywordsAuthors must supply five to 10 key words or phrases that identify the most important subjects covered by the paper.

References and CitationsInclude only references to books, articles, and bulletins actually cited in the text. All references must follow the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), version 6.2. References in the text should cite the author’s last name, year of publication, and page (if appropriate). All references used in the text should appear at the end of the typed script in alphabetical order using APA version 6.2 style.

Examples of references:

McCool, S. & Braithwaite, A. (1992). Persuasive Messages and Safety Hazards in Dispersed and Natural Recreation Settings. In M. Manfredo (Ed.), Influencing Human Behavior. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

Ryan, C. & Dewar, K. (1995). Evaluating the Communication Process Between Interpreter and Visitor. Tourism Management, 16(4): 295-303.

Tilden, F. (1977). Interpreting Our Heritage (2nd ed.). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Figures All figures must be discussed in the text and numbered in order of mention. Each figure must be submitted as a print-ready digital file. Label each figure with article title, author’s name, and figure number by attaching a separate sheet of white paper to the back of each figure. Each figure should be provided with a brief, descriptive legend. All legends should be typed on a separate page at the end of the manuscript.

TablesAll tables must be discussed in the text and numbered in order of mention. Each table should have a brief descriptive title. Do not include explanatory material in the title: use footnotes keyed to the table with superscript lowercase letters. Place all footnotes to a table at the end of the table. Define all data in the column heads. Every table should be fully understandable without reference to the text. Type all tables on separate sheets; do not include them within the text.

PermissionsIf any figure, table, or more than a few lines of text from a previously published work are included in a manuscript, the author must obtain written permission for publication from the copyright holder and forward a copy to the editor with the manuscript.

CopyrightUnder U.S. copyright law, the transfer of copyright from the author to the publisher (National Association for Interpretation, DBA Journal of Interpretation Research) must be explicitly stated to enable the publisher to ensure maximum dissemination of the author’s work. A completed copyright form sent to you with the acknowledgment must be returned to the publisher before any manuscript can be assigned an issue for publication.

s u b m i s s i o n g u i d e l i n e s


ProofsAll proofs must be corrected and returned to the publisher within 48 hours of receipt. If the manuscript is not returned within the allotted time, the editor will proofread the article, and it will be printed per his/her instruction. Only correction of typographical errors is permitted. The author will be charged for additional alterations to text at the proof stage.

SubmissionPlease submit an original and three copies of your manuscript to the address below. Authors whose manuscripts are accepted for publication must submit final manuscripts electronically or on computer disk.

ContactIf you have comments or questions regarding the Journal of Interpretation Research, please contact the editor:

Carolyn Widner WardEditor, Journal of Interpretation ResearchChief Executive OfficerBlue Ridge Parkway Foundation

Blue Ridge Parkway199 Hemphill Knob RoadAsheville, NC 28803

e-mail: [email protected]

SubscriptionsIf you have questions regarding subscription rates or delivery services, please contact the National Association for Interpretation toll-free at 888-900-8283, online at www.interpnet.com, or by mail at P.O. Box 2246, Fort Collins, CO 80522.

a p p e n d i x

2011 16(1) journal · 2018-04-04 · a comparative study of interpretive podcasts and traditional...

Documents