Interpretive services are accepted elements of recreational experiences in natural areas. But what do we really know about the effectiveness of interpretation? By evaluating their services through well-planned visitor research, interpreters can better focus on enriching visitors’ experiences. This paper presents findings from three Australian studies into visitors’ reactions to interpretation. At Kakadu National Park, guided activities provided more immediate responses to visitors’ questions on Aboriginal art and culture than on-site signs, while a well-designed interpretive mural mitigated people's disappointment at visiting a wetland area when no birds were present. Two studies of guided activities in Victorian national parks showed that participants were neither the “converted” nor the “same old faces,” and that they valued the very elements that make guided interpretation so special. This paper also demonstrates how variety and innovation in evaluation techniques can enhance the quality of interpretation research.
AldridgeD. (1974). Upgrading park interpretation and communication with the public. In ElliottH. (Ed.), Second World Conference on National Parks, held at Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks (pp. 300–311). Morges, Switzerland: IUCN.
2.
AldridgeD. (1975). Guide to countryside interpretation. Part one: Principles of countryside interpretation and interpretive planning.Edinburgh, Scotland: HMSO (for Countryside Commission for Scotland and Countryside Commission).
3.
AldridgeD. (1989). How the ship of interpretation was blown off course in the tempest: Some philosophical thoughts. In UzzellD. L. (Ed.), Heritage interpretation. Vol. 1: The natural and built environment (pp. 64–87). London: Belhaven Press.
4.
BeckmannE.A. (1987a). Interpretation: The need for evaluation.Australian Ranger Bulletin, 4 (2), 31.
5.
BeckmannE. A. (1987b). Interpretation in Australia: Current status and future prospects.Australian Parks and Recreation, 23 (6), 6–14.
6.
BeckmannE. A. (1989a). Interpretation in Australian national parks and reserves: Status, evaluation and prospects. In UzzellD. L. (Ed.), Heritage interpretation. Vol. 1: The natural and built environment (pp. 142–152). London: Belhaven Press.
7.
BeckmannE. A. (1989b). An evaluation of the 1988—89 summer holiday program in national parks in Victoria. Report to the Department of Conservation, Forests and LandsVictoria, Australia.
8.
BeckmannE. A. (1990). Evaluation of interpretive services and facilities, Kakadu National Park. Report to Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service.
9.
BeckmannE. A. (1991). Environmental interpretation for education and management in Australian national parks and other protected areas. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of New EnglandArmidale, Australia.
10.
BeckmannE.A. (1993a). Evaluation: The key to effectiveness in interpretation. In: OlssonS., & SaundersR. (Eds.), Open to interpretation: Ideas, feelings and actions. Conference papers of the inaugural conference of the Interpretation Australia Association (pp. 127–131). Melbourne: Interpretation Australia Association, Inc.
11.
BeckmannE. A. (1993b). Evaluation of visitor interpretation programs with emphasis on Night Walks and Rockpool Rambles, summer 1992–93. Report to Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Victoria, Australia.
12.
BeckmannE. A. (1993c). Report on survey of visitors’ awareness and interest in visitor interpretation programs at Wilsons Prom National Park, summer 1993. Report to Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Victoria, Australia.
13.
BeckmannE. A. (1996). The risks of evaluation: Losing wisdom in knowledge. In BeckmannE. A., & RussellR. (Eds.), Interpretation and the getting of wisdom. Papers presented at the fourth annual Interpretation Australia Association conference, Canberra (pp. 44–47). Canberra: Interpretation Australia Association, Inc.
14.
BeckmannE. A., & OlssonS. (1994). Night Walks and Rockpool Rambles: Are they just for fun? In MarkwellK., & MuloinS. (Eds.), Open to interpretation 1993. Papers of the annual Interpretation Australia Association conference (pp. 156–166). Newcastle: University of Newcastle and Interpretation Australia Association.
15.
BurnsR. B. (1997). Introduction to research methods.Melbourne, Australia: Longman.
16.
Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria. (1999). Best practice in park interpretation and education.A report to the ANZECC Working Group on National park and Protected Area Management Benchmarking and Best Practice Program. Prepared by Earthlines Consortium. Melbourne: Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria, Australia.
17.
EdwardsR.Y. (1973). Interpretation: Something new. In SchoenfeldC. (Ed.), Interpreting environmental issues (pp. 27–28). Madison, WI: Dembar Educational Research Services.
18.
FieldD. R., & WagarJ. A. (1982). People and interpretation. In SharpeG.W. (Ed.), Interpreting the environment (pp. 52–72). New York: Wiley.
19.
HamS. H. (1986). Evaluation and interpretation: A literature review. In MachlisG. (Ed.), Interpretive views: Opinions on evaluating interpretation in the National Park Service (pp. 9–38). Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association.
20.
HockingsM., LeveringtonF., & CarterB. (1995). Public contact planning for conservation management. Occasional Paper 3(2), Department of Management Studies, University of QueenslandGatton College.
21.
HuxtableD., & BeckmannE. A. (1989). Holiday programs in Victoria: An evaluation.Australian Ranger Bulletin, 5 (3), 35–37.
22.
LewisW. J. (1989). Training interpreters. In UzzellD. L. (Ed.), Heritage interpretation. Vol. 1: The natural and built environment (pp. 113–210). London: Belhaven Press.
23.
MachlisG. E. (Ed.). (1986). Interpretive views: Opinions on evaluating interpretation in the National Park Service.Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association.
24.
MaldagueM. (1976). Evaluation. In SavelandR. N. (Ed.), Handbook of environmental education with international case studies (pp. 193–200). London: John Wiley.
25.
MarshJ. S. (Ed.) (1986). Natural and cultural heritage interpretation evaluation: Proceedings of 1983 conference.Ottawa: Interpretation Canada and Trent University.
26.
McArthurS. (1994). Evaluating interpretation: What's been done and where to from here? In BeckmannE. A., & HullS. (Eds.), Interpretation attached to heritage. Papers presented at the Third Annual Interpretation Australia Association Conference, Albury, NSW (pp. 126–135). Melbourne: Interpretation Australia Association, Inc.
27.
McArthurS., & HallC. M. (1996). Visitor research and monitoring. In HallC. M., & McArthurS. (Eds.), Heritage management in Australia and New Zealand: The human dimension (pp. 52–73). Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
28.
MilesR. S., AltM. B., GoslingD. C., LewisA. F., & ToutA. F. (1982). The design of educational exhibits.London: George Allen & Unwin.
29.
Moses, Epstein, & Wiseman, Inc. (1977). Assessing the impact of interpretive programs.Report prepared for the Division of Interpretation and Visitor Services, National Park Service. Washington, DC: Moses, Epstein, & Wiseman, Inc.
30.
PropstD. B., & RoggenbuckJ.W. (1981). A guide to cultural and environmental interpretation in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.Instruction Report R-81-1. Washington, DC: Office, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army.
31.
PutneyA. D., & WagarJ. A. (1973). Objectives and evaluation in interpretive planning.Journal of Environmental Education, 5 (1), 43–44.
32.
RamseyG. (1976). Questions of evaluation and accountability in environmental education. In LinkeR. D. (Ed.), Education and the human environment.Canberra: Australian National Commission for UNESCO.
33.
TildenF. (1977). Interpreting our heritage.Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
34.
UzzellD. L. (1985). Management issues in the provision of countryside interpretation.Leisure Studies, 4 (2), 159–174.
