Environmental interpretation is widely assumed to influence visitor behaviour and reduce impacts on a natural site. Assumptions of cause and effect are difficult to attribute and relatively few studies evaluate the effects of interpretation on visitor behaviours. We reviewed a sample of the interpretation evaluation literature available through online databases. We looked at the internal validity of evaluative studies and compared different interpretive approaches in terms of outcomes. Findings indicate an evaluative emphasis on quantifying knowledge gain and attitude change with few studies extending to measurement of behavioural change. The large number of possible variables and small number of completed studies prevent substantive conclusions on the role of interpretation in promoting more sustainable visitor behaviour. Further research is needed in terms of robust evaluative studies to facilitate development of a clear understanding of interpretive programs' influence on visitor behaviour. It is problematic to assess environmental interpretation as a visitor management tool until further such evaluative studies are performed.

No abstract

Planning and management for marine and coastal areas is often contentious, with competing interests claiming their preferences are in the ‘public interest’. Defining the public interest for marine and coastal areas remains a wicked problem, however, resistant to resolution. A focus on more tangible ‘public values’ offers an alternative for policy and planning in specific contexts. However, ambiguity surrounds who or what constitutes the ‘public’, with stakeholder engagement often used as a proxy in marine and coastal research. In this study, the outcomes of participatory processes involving the public from diverse backgrounds and geographical locales were explored. A public participation GIS (PPGIS) survey was undertaken in the remote Kimberley region of Australia to identify the spatial values and management preferences for marine and coastal areas. Similarities and differences between the volunteer public (n = 372) and online panel respondents (n = 206); and for the volunteer public only, differences between residents (n = 118) and non-residents (n = 254) were assessed. Online panelists evidenced lesser quality mapping data and did not provide a reliable means of accessing ‘public’ values. Residents were more likely to map general recreational and recreational fishing values while non-locals were more likely to map biological/conservation and wilderness values. Overall, residents and non-residents were more alike than dissimilar in their mapping of values and management preferences, suggesting that the need to preference local views may be overstated, although there may be differences in policy priorities. Future research should focus on the breadth and representativeness of stakeholder interests to access the views of wider society and hence public values, rather than current approaches where local interests are often the primary focus of participatory stakeholder engagement

No abstract

Over the last two decades, recovery plans have emerged as one of the most widespread policy and management responses for endangered species. Often these plans include public and private lands, and the associated government departments and private landholders. Toolibin Lake, in the West Australian (WA) wheatbelt, is a case in point, with a recovery plan focused on an internationally recognized wetland on public land within a predominantly privately owned, agricultural catchment. This paper draws on recent questionnaire and interview-based research with landholders, to evaluate the influence of the recovery plan on conservation activities. Almost all landholders in the Catchment (93%) are involved in revegetation activities, with the availability of subsidies from the WA Government playing a strong role in adoption and its extent. The main constraints to adopting conservation actions, such as revegetation and fencing remnant vegetation, were cost and logistics. Correspondingly, the greatest incentive was financial inducement. Strengths of the recovery plan were identified as increasing awareness, demonstrating government effectiveness, and making funding available to landholders. The communication efforts by the WA Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM), the agency leading the recovery process, were lauded while at the same time the need for improved liaison was noted. Weaknesses were the lack of information and direction from CALM, bureaucracy, limited funding for CALM, and variable adoption across the Catchment. Recovery planning in this Catchment and other similar settings could be improved by a continuing commitment to two-way communication between all those involved, ongoing recognition of the complexities of the government-community interface in recovery planning, and continuing subsidies for conservation actions on private lands where high biodiversity values are at stake.