This 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.
AbsherJ. D., & GraefeA. R. (1997). Trip motives of interpretive program attendees and nonattendees.Journal of Interpretation Research, 2 (1), 55–56.
2.
AlterP., & WardR. (1994). Exhibit evaluation: Taking account of human factors. In Hooper-GreenhillE. (Ed.), The educational role of the museum (p. 204–212). London: Routledge.
3.
BeckL., & CableT. (2002). Interpretation for the 21st Century: Fifteen guiding principles for interpreting nature and culture. (2nd ed.) Illinois: Sagamore Publishing.
4.
BeckmannE. A. (1999). Evaluating visitors’ reactions to interpretation in Australian National Parks.Journal of Interpretation Research, 4 (1), 5–19.
CobleT., LinH. S., CobleD.W., HartJ.L., WilliamsP.S., & DarvilleR. (2005). Visitor Voices Project 2005: Final report. Retrieved March 28, 2011 from http://www.wnpa.org/research/lyjo05-15yr2.pdf.
8.
CobleT. (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.
9.
DornanE. (2003). MeaningMakers.org literature review: Effects of multimedia interpretation on visitor experience. Retrieved March 28, 2011 from http://queenellen.com/pdf/LitReview.pdf.
HamS. H. (1992). Environmental Interpretation: A practical guide for people with big ideas and small budgets.Golden, CO: North American Press.
12.
HamS. H., & WeilerB. (2006). Development of a research-based tool for evaluating interpretation.Queensland, Australia: Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre.
13.
HamS. H., & WeilerB. (2007). Isolating the role of on-site interpretation in a satisfying experience.Journal of Interpretation Research, 12 (2), 5–24.
14.
KnappD., & BentonG. M. (2004). Elements to successful interpretation: A multiple case study of five National Parks.Journal of Interpretation Research, 9 (2), 9–25.
15.
LarsenD. L. (Ed). (2003). Meaningful interpretation: How to connect hearts and minds to places, objects, and other resources.Ft. Washington, PA: Eastern National.
16.
LeL., EvansJ., Vander-StoepG. A., & HollenhurstS.J. (2007). Visitor services project: Zion National Park.University of Idaho: Cooperative Park Studies Unit.
17.
LittlejohnM., MeldrumM., HollenhurstS.J. (1990). Visitor services project: Canyonlands National Park.University of Idaho: Cooperative Park Studies Unit.
18.
LittlejohnM., MeldrumM., HollenhurstS.J. (2006). Visitor services project: Yosemite National Park.University of Idaho: Cooperative Park Studies Unit.
19.
MachlisG. E. (Ed.). (1986). Interpretive views: Opinions on evaluating interpretation in the National Park Service.Washington, D.C.: National Parks and Conservation Association.
20.
MeldrumB. H., LittlejohnM. A., & HollenhorstS. J. (2004). Arches National Park: Visitor study (Spring 2003).University of Idaho: Cooperative Park Studies Unit.
21.
MilesR.S., AltM. B., GoslingD.C., LewisA.F., & ToutA.F. (1982). The design of educational exhibits.London: George Allen & Unwin.
22.
MillerJ. S., & FarrellK. (2006). Interpretation on the web.Legacy, 17 (5), 26–31.
23.
MorganM. (2009). Interpretation and place attachment: Implications for cognitive map theory.Journal of Interpretation Research, 14 (1), 47–59.
24.
NeumanW. Lawrence (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th ed.). Toronto: Allyn & Bacon.
25.
NoveyL. T., & HallT. E. (2006). The effect of audio tours on learning and social interaction: An evaluation at Carlsbad Caverns National Park.Science Education, 91, 260–277.
SchallerD. T., Allison-BunnellS., BorunM., & ChambersM. 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
29.
TubbsK. 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.
30.
USDI NPS. (2003). Renewing our education mission: Report to the National Leadership Council, June 2003. Unpublished report, National Park ServiceWashington, D.C.
