Based on data from 272 live interpretive programs conducted across 24 units of the U.S. National Park Service, we investigate the influence of context upon interpretive programs and visitor outcomes. We first examined whether outcomes vary based upon the size of the audience and its age makeup; program characteristics such as duration, topic, and type; and characteristics of the setting including proximity to urban centers, program location (indoor vs. outdoor), and resource quality. We then examine whether different program or interpreter characteristics operate differently in different contexts by examining their relationships to visitor outcomes in four context pairings: programs with mostly children vs. mostly adults in the audience; culturally focused vs. environmentally focused programs; programs conducted in remote vs. urban parks; and indoor vs. outdoor programs. The findings suggest that a small number of program and interpreter characteristics may operate differently within different contexts. Based on these results, we propose hypotheses regarding which program characteristics appear to be more or less beneficial (or harmful) to generating desired visitor outcomes in different contexts.
AjzenI. (1992). Persuasive Communication Theory in Social Psychology: A Historical Perspective. In ManfredoM. J. (Ed.), Influencing Human Behavior (pp. 1–28). Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing, Inc.
2.
AltmanI., & RogoffB. (1987). World view in psychology: Trait, interactionist, organismic, and transactionalist approaches. In StokolsD., & AltmanI. (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology (pp. 1–40). New York: John Wiley.
3.
ArcherD., & WearingS. (2003). Self, space, and interpretive experience: The interactionism of environmental interpretation.Journal of Interpretation Research, 8 (1), 7–23.
4.
ArnouldE. J., & PriceL. (1993). River Magic: Extraordinary Experience and the Extended Service Encounter.Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (1), 24–45.
5.
BallantyneR., FienJ., & PackerJ. (2001). Program Effectiveness in Facilitating Intergenerational Influence in Environmental Education: Lessons From the Field.The Journal of Environmental Education, 32 (4), 8–15. doi: 10.1080/00958960109598657
6.
BoozerM., & RouseC. (2001). Intraschool variation in class size: Patterns and implications.Journal of Urban Economics, 50 (1), 163–189.
7.
BrochuL., & MerrimanT. (2002). Personal interpretation: Connecting your audience to heritage resources.Fort Collins, CO: InterpPress.
8.
BrownG., & RaymondC. (2007). The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: Toward mapping place attachment.Applied Geography, 27 (2), 89–111. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2006.11.002
9.
CromptonJ. L., & SellarC. (1981). Do Outdoor Education Experiences Contribute to Positive Development in the Affective Domain?The Journal of Environmental Education, 12 (4), 21–29. doi: 10.1080/00958964.1981.9942638
10.
DuvallJ., & ZintM. (2007). A Review of Research on the Effectiveness of Environmental Education in Promoting Intergenerational Learning.The Journal of Environmental Education, 38 (4), 14–24. doi: 10.3200/joee.38.4.14–24
11.
FalkJ. (2004). The director's cut: Toward an improved understanding of learning from museums.Science Education, 88(S1), S83–S96. doi: 10.1002/sce.20014
12.
FalkJ., & DeirkingL. D. (2000). Learning from Museums.Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
13.
FinnJ. D., & AchillesC. M. (1999). Tennessee's class size study: Findings, implications, misconceptions.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21 (2), 97–109.
14.
ForistB. (2003). Visitor use and evaluation of interpretive media. A report on visitors to the National Park System.National Park Service Visitor Services Project.
15.
GalagherW. (1993). The power of place.New York: Poseidon.
16.
GlassG. V. (1982). School class size: Research and policy.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication.
17.
HamS. H., BrownT. J., CurtisJ., WeilerB., HughesM., & PollM. (2007). Promoting persuasion in protected areas: A guide for managers.Developing strategic communication to influence visitor behavior. Southport, Queensland, Australia: Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre.
18.
HeintzmanP. (2009). Nature-Based Recreation and Spirituality: A Complex Relationship.Leisure Sciences, 32 (1), 72–89. doi: 10.1080/01490400903430897
19.
HeintzmanP., & MannellR. C. (2003). Spiritual Functions of Leisure and Spiritual Well-Being: Coping with Time Pressure.Leisure Sciences, 25 (2-3), 207–230. doi: 10.1080/01490400306563
20.
KahnP. H., & KellertS. R. (Eds.). (2002). Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
KaplanR., & KaplanS. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
KaplanR., KaplanS., & RyanR. L. (1998). With people in mind: Design and management of everyday nature.Washington DC: Island Press.
23.
KaplanS. (1993). The role of natural environment aesthetics in the restorative experience.St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service.
24.
KellertS. R. (1996). The Value of Life.Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
25.
KellertS. R. (2005). Building for life: Designing and understanding the human-nature connection.Washington DC: Island Press.
26.
KellertS. R., & FarnhamT. (Eds.). (2002). The Good in Nature and Humanity: Connecting Science, Religion, and Spirituality with the Natural World.Washington, DC: Island Press.
27.
KoecniV. (2005). The aesthetic trinity: Awe, being moved, thrills.Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 5, 27–44.
28.
LacomeB. (2003). The interpretation equation. In LarsenD. (Ed.), Meaningful interpretation: How to connect hearts and minds to places, objects, and other resources.Eastern National.
29.
LarsenD. (Ed.). (2003). Meaningful interpretation: How to connect hearts and minds to places, objects, and other resources.Eastern National.
30.
LaskiM. (1961). Ecstasy: A study of some secular and religious experiences.London: Cressett Press.
31.
MayerC. C., & WallaceG. (2008). The interpretive power of setting: Identifying and protecting the interpretive postential of the internal and external setting at Copan Archaeological Park, Honduras.Journal of Interpretation Research, 13 (2), 7–29.
32.
McManusP. M. (1987). It's the company you keep: The social determination of learning, Äêrelated behaviour in a science museum.International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, 6 (3), 263–270. doi: 10.1080/09647778709515076
33.
McManusP. M. (1988). Good companions: More on the social determination of learning, related behaviour in a science museum.International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, 7 (1), 37–44. doi: 10.1080/09647778809515102
34.
MerrimanT., & BrochuL. (2005). Management of interpretive sites: Developing sustainable operations through effective management.Fort Collins, CO: InterpPress.
35.
MoscardoG. (1999). Making Visitors Mindful: Principles for Creating Quality Sustainable Visitor Experiences through Effective Communication.Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.
36.
OttoR. (1958). The Idea of the Holy (J. W. Harvey, Trans. second ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
37.
PowellR. B., BrownleeM. T. J., KellertS. R., & HamS. H. (2012). From awe to satisfaction: immediate affective responses to the Antarctic tourism experience.Polar Record, 48 (02), 145–156. doi: doi: 10.1017/S0032247410000720
38.
PowellR. B., KellertS. R., & HamS. H. (2009). Interactional theory and the sustainable nature-based tourism experience.Society and Natural Resources, 28 (8), 761–776.
39.
SkibinsJ. C., PowellR. B., & SternM. J. (2012). Linking interpretation best practices with outcomes: A review of literature.Journal of Interpretation Research, 17 (1), 25–44.
40.
SternM. J., PowellR. B., & HillD.Environmental education program evaluation in the new millennium: What do we measure and what have we learned?Environmental Education Research. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2013.838749
41.
StokolsD., & AltmanI. (Eds.). (1987). Handbook of Environmental Psychology.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
42.
Van WinkleC. M. (2012). The effect of tour type on visitors’ perceived cognitive load and learning.Journal of Interpretation Research, 17 (1), 45–58.
43.
WearingS., & WearingB. (2001). Conceptualizng the selves of tourism.Leisure Studies, 20, 143–159.
44.
WilliamsK., & HarveyD. (2001). Transcendent experience in forest environmentsJournal of Environmental Psychology, 21 (3), 249–260. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0204
45.
ZeleznyL. C. (1999). Educational interventions that improve environmental behaviors: a meta-analysis.The Journal of Environmental Education, 31 (1), 5–14. doi: 10.1080/00958969909598627
46.
ZinkR., & BurrowsL. (2008). “Is what you see what you get?” The production of knowledge in-between the indoors and the outdoors in outdoor education.Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 13 (3), 251–265. doi: 10.1080/17408980701345733
