Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study examines the perceptions of interpretive rangers and of the visiting public regarding explanations for attendance of ranger-led interpretive programs at Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Interpretive rangers’ perceptions about the most important barriers to program attendance were corroborated by park visitors and included a lack of awareness of the programs, insufficient time or inconvenient timing, and a preference for a more solitary park experience. While interpreters suggested that interest in a specific topic or place, the offering of a tangible reward or souvenir, and chance/serendipity would be the most consistently important predictors of attendance, surveys with park visitors suggested that desires to be entertained, a better chance to actually see the park's unique attractions, and a good group experience were more consistent motivators. This paper discusses recommendations for increasing interpretive program attendance and compares the value of collecting information about motivations for program attendance directly from visitors versus relying on ranger perceptions.

Keywords

adaptive management barriers cultural heritage interpretation environmental interpretation Great Smoky Mountains National Park information sources motivations ranger-led program attendance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Absher

J. D.

, & Graefe

A.R.

(1997). Trip motives of interpretive program attendees and nonattendees. Journal of Interpretation Research, 2 (1), 55–56.

Galloway

(2002). Psychographic segmentation of park visitor markets: evidence for the utility of sensation seeking. Tourism Management, 23, 581–596.

Ham

(1992). Environmental Interpretation: A Practical Guide for People with Big Ideas and Small Budgets. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.

Ham

(2009). From interpretation to protection: is there a theoretical basis? Journal of Interpretation Research, 14 (2), 49–57.

Irving

R.L.

(1986). Preferences of state and national park visitors for interpretive methods: implications for program attendance. Masters Thesis. Humboldt State University.

Knudson

D. M.

, & Vanderford

M. E.

(1980). Participation in interpretive programs by state park visitors. Journal of Interpretation, 5 (2), 20–23.

McCarthy

M.A.

, & Possingham

H.P.

(2007). Active adaptive management for conservation. Conservation Biology, 21 (4), 956–963.

Morse

P.J.

(1977). A pilot study of attitudes of state park visitor toward interpretive programs. M.A. Thesis. California State University

Chico, CA.

125 pp.

Moscardo

(1999). Making Visitors Mindful: Principles for Creating Sustainable Visitor Experiences through Effective Communication. Champaign, Illinois: Sagamore Publishing.

10.

Mullins

G.W.

(1979). Participation and nonparticipation in interpretation: A study of people, places, and activities. Ph.D. Dissertation. Texas A & M University

College Station, TX.

11.

National Park Service Public Use Statistics Office (2010). National Park Service Public Use Statistics Office webpage. URL: http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/index.cfm. Accessed November 1, 2010.

12.

(1986). Determining the effects of information sources on attendance at interpretive programs. Masters Thesis. University of Idaho.

13.

Packer

J.M.

(2004). Motivational factors and the experience of learning in educational leisure settings. PhD Dissertation. Centre for Innovation and Learning. Queensland University of Technology.

14.

Papadogiannaki

, & Hollenhorst

S.J.

(2008). Great Smoky Mountains National Park Visitor Study, Draft Study, Summer 2008. Park Studies Unit, Visitor Services Project, University of Idaho.

15.

Papadogiannaki

, Braak

, Holmes

, Eury

, & Hollenhorst

S.J.

(2009). Great Smoky Mountains National Park Visitor Study. Park Studies Unit, Visitor Services Project, University of Idaho, Report 205. URL: http://www.psu.uidaho.edu/files/vsp/reports/205.2%20GRSM_report.pdf. Accessed November1, 2010.

16.

Park Studies Unit (2010). Visitor Survey Project Webpage. University of Idaho. URL: http://www.psu.uidaho.edu/vsp.reports.htm

17.

Powell

R. B.

, Kellert

S. R.

, & Ham

S. H.

(2009). Interactional theory and the sustainable nature-based tourism experience. Society and Natural Resources, 28 (8), 761–776.

18.

Reyburn

J.H.

(1974). Factors influencing attendance at interpretive programs at five Indiana state parks. Masters Thesis. Purdue University.

19.

Sheehan

2001. Email survey response rates: a review. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6 (2). URL: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue2/sheehan.html. Accessed September 1, 2009.

20.

Srisomyoung

(2000). A study of park visitors; use of interpretive programs at Lake Wissota State Park, WI. Masters Thesis. University of Wisconsin—Stout.

21.

Stern

M.J.

(2010). Payoffs vs. process: Expanding the paradigm for park/people studies beyond economic rationality. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 29 (2-4), 174–201.

22.

Tilden

(1957). Interpreting Our Heritage. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

23.

Veverka

(1978). A survey and analysis of selected park visitor's motivations for attending environmental interpretation programs. Masters Thesis. The Ohio State University.

24.

Ward

C.W.

, & Wilkinson

A.E.

(2006). Conducting Meaningful Interpretation: A Field Guide for Success. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.

Why Do They Come? Understanding Attendance at Ranger-Led Programs in Great Smoky Mountains National Park

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References