Environmental Interpretation Evaluation in Natural Areas

Abstract

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.

Building a culture of conservation: Research findings and research priorities on connecting people to nature in parks

“…Preliminary research suggests that interpretive programmes can increase feelings of nature connectedness, particularly if they complement knowledge-based learning with emotional connections to nature or to place. However, research on the influence of interpretive programming on behaviours in natural areas is limited and lacks robustness (Munro et al, 2008;Weiler et al, 2013).…”

Does more interpretation lead to greater outcomes? An assessment of the impacts of multiple layers of interpretation in a zoo context

“…A number of studies have succeeded in identifying and measuring specific cognitive (knowing), affective (feeling) and behavioural (doing) outcomes of interpretation (see for example the reviews by Weiler, 2006 andMunro et al, 2008), including the impacts of interpretation in zoos, aquariums and non-captive wildlife settings (e.g. Adelman et al, 2000;White and Jacobson, 1994;Orams, 1994;Dierking et al, 2002;Rabb, 2004;Randler et al, 2007;Swanagan, 2000).…”

Poučne staze za samostalni obilazak u zaštićenim područjima i njihov značaj za ekološko obrazovanje posjetitelja

“…Similarly, a synergic eff ect between the interpretive trail and whether a respondent was interviewed outside INT, before INT or after INT was not proven (Table 5). Th erefore, these results can be better generalised than those of studies of individual localities (see, for example, Jacobs and Harms, 2014;Munro, Morrison-Saunders and Hughes, 2008). Th ere is a signifi cant diff erence in scores by outside INT, before INT or after INT group (Figure 3).…”

“…Previous studies have shown that environmental education can encourage pro-environmental behaviour (Jacobs and Harms, 2014), and trails' importance for environmental knowledge is indisputable (Angelini et al, 2011), although some information communicated on trails can be non-objective (Braithwaite and Leiper, 2010), and visitors' future behaviour does not necessarily display more environmental friendliness in the long term (Hughes, 2013). A detailed overview of these papers can be found in Munro, Morrison-Saunders and Hughes (2008). Interpretive trails are one of the most widely used tools in environmental education in large protected areas in Central and Eastern European countries (Cetkovsky et al, 2007;Foret and Klusacek, 2011;Svec et al, 2012;Frantal and Urbankova, 2014;Kroupova et al, 2014), and there is a notion that all visitors to protected areas visit interpretive trails, much like other backbone sites, such as chateaux, castles and castle ruins (Zelenka et al, 2013).…”