Comparing Interpretive Methods Targeting Invasive Species Management at Cumberland Island National Seashore

Abstract

Interpretation designed to increase public understanding and appreciation of environmental issues can provide support for management actions in protected areas, but the relative impact of different interpretive strategies on public awareness and attitudes has not been adequately explored. The purpose of this research was to compare the effects of two interpretive programs (a non-personal, visual-based flyer and an interpersonal, audio-based talk) relative to a control group on visitors’ knowledge of, attitudes toward, and support for invasive species management at Cumberland Island National Seashore, Georgia. In general, the interpretive talk appeared to be more effective than the flyer at increasing awareness and generating support for invasive species management. Although visitors exposed to each of the treatments displayed greater knowledge of invasive species, effects on attitudes and management preferences were minimal. Future research examining the effects of interpretive media on public awareness of and support for controversial management decisions could therefore explore mechanisms for maximizing the impact of interpretive programming on visitors’ attitudes and preferences.

Leave No Trace Communication:Effectiveness Based on Assessments of Resource Conditions

“…Non-personal delivery of messages with signs were rated second most effective by 32% of visitors, followed by word of mouth (26%), and information boards (24%). The results of this study were consistent with other research, which has found that employing agency personnel or volunteers to communicate low impact messages is well accepted by the public and is not considered an intrusion by most visitors (Johnson & Vande Kamp, 1996; Sharp et al, 2012). Similarly, Marion et al (2008) found that a personally delivered message from a uniformed NPS Ranger was more effective in deterring visitors from feeding chipmunks than a sign.…”

“…The three targeted camping impact problems and their associated minimum impact behaviors were highlighted in both the displays and brochures. However, those picking up permits may not have taken the time to read the information (Sharp et al, 2012), sign the pledge ( N = 58), 1 or to pass the LNT practices along to other group members. For example, campers who are in a hurry to find a campsite or arrive after dark may overlook such printed media.…”

Taking Stock of Interpretation Research: Where Have We Been and Where are We Heading?

“…Although visitors' felt higher cognitive load associated with the audio tour, there was no statistically significant difference in learning between the two. Sharp et al (2012) found that both an interpretive flyer and an interpretive talk influenced awareness. However, visitors who listened to the talk were significantly more likely to support management interventions than those who read the flyer.…”

Why do sea turtle nests fail? Modeling clutch loss across the southeastern United States

“…Retrospective studies of sea turtle nest success have identified nest depredation as being an extremely destructive force in sea turtle nest productivity (Welicky et al, 2012). Because of prior research identifying the destruction caused by depredation on nesting beaches, the National Park Service has dedicated significant resources to controlling populations of highly destructive predators through hunting and trapping (Sharp et al, 2012) and preventing predator nest access using nest screens and cages. Close to half of the depredation events in our dataset identified ghost crabs as the only predator.…”

“…Using National Park Service data, we were limited in our ability to draw conclusions on the effects of predator management as parks that had historic depredation issues implemented strong predator management, such as placing predator deterrence cages and screens on almost every loggerhead nest during nesting season. Additionally, parks have effectively removed highly destructive predators such as feral hogs, and limited nest access from other common destructive predators such as raccoons (Keeton et al, 2013; Martin et al, 2012; Sharp et al, 2012), so the depredation events included in our dataset result in less clutch failure than has been seen on other beaches not managed by the national parks and close to our study sites (Butler et al, 2020) and during prior, less managed time periods (Welicky et al, 2012).…”