Evaluating Environmental Interpretation with Mixed Method: A Case Study at the International Crane Foundation,Wisconsin

Abstract

A mixed method approach was used to evaluate effectiveness of environmental interpretation on visitors’ knowledge, environmental attitude, and pro-environmental behavioral intentions at the International Crane Foundation. Quantitative analysis suggests that participating in personal interpretation has the advantage of improving an audience's knowledge level, but is no more effective than nonpersonal interpretation in influencing attitude and behavioral intentions. Personal and nonpersonal interpretive methods are both effective in promoting knowledge and behavioral intentions for conservation, but do not influence environmental attitude. Qualitative results indicate that participation in personal interpretation makes more of an impression in the visitors’ long-term memory than nonpersonal interpretation.

Keywords

environmental interpretation conservation education evaluation research mixed method International Crane Foundation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179–211.

Bacher

, Baltrus

, Barrie

, Cardea

, Chandler

, Dahlen

(2007). Interpretive Development Program - professional standards for learning and performance. National Park Service, US Department of the Interior.

Bruin

2006. newtest: command to compute new test. UCLA: Statistical Consulting Group. http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/ado/analysis/.

Dunlap

R. E.

, Van Liere

K. D.

, Mertig

A. G.

, & Jones

R. E.

(2002). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3), 425–442.

Dunlap

W. P.

, Cortina

J. M.

, Vaslow

J. B.

, & Burke

M. J.

(1996). Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychological Methods 1 (2), 170–177.

Fishbein

(1979). A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 27, 65–116.

Forist

B. E.

(2003). Visitor Use and Evaluation of Interpretive Media. National Park Service, US Department of the Interior.

Frison

, & Pocock

S. J.

(1992). Repeated measures in clinical trials: Analysis using mean summary statistics and its implications for design. Statistics in Medicine 11 (13), 1685–1704.

Ham

S. H.

(1992). Environmental Interpretation. Golden, Colorado: North American Press.

10.

Ham

S. H.

(2007). Can interpretation really make a difference? Answers to four questions from cognitive and behavioral psychology (pp. 25–29). Presented at the Interpreting World Heritage Conference, Vancouver, Canada: National Association for Interpretation Fort Collins, CO.

11.

Ham

S. H.

, & Weiler

(2002). Interpretation as the centerpiece of sustainable wildlife tourism. In Harris

, Griffin

, & Williams

, Sustainable Tourism (2nd ed., pp. 35–44). Routledge.

12.

Holbrook

A. L.

, Berent

M. K.

, Krosnick

J. A.

, Visser

P. S.

, & Boninger

D. S.

(2005). Attitude importance and the accumulation of attitude-relevant knowledge in memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 (5), 749–769.

13.

Hughes

, & Morrison-Saunders

(2005). Interpretation, activity participation, and environmental attitudes of visitors to Penguin Island, Western Australia. Society & Natural Resources, 18 (7), 611–624.

14.

International Crane Foundation. (2012). International Crane Foundation Naturalist Traning Manual (pp. 1–111).

15.

International Crane Foundation. (2014a). About International Crane Foundation. Retrieved March 2014, from https://www.savingcranes.org/about-icf.html

16.

Istvan

L. B.

(1993). Communicating the Arcane: A Conceptual Framework for Environmental Interpretation. University of Washington.

17.

Jones

, & Georgen

(2012). Wyoming State Parks, Historic Sites & Trails Proposed Interpretive Services Guidelines. SPHST Interpretive Committee.

18.

Kim

A. K. J.

, Airey

, & Szivas

(2011). The multiple assessment of interpretation effectiveness: Promoting visitors’ environmental attitudes and behavior. Journal of Travel Research, 50 (3), 321–334.

19.

Knapp

, & Poff

(2001). A qualitative analysis of the immediate and short-term impact of an environmental interpretive program. Environmental Education Research, 7 (1), 55–65.

20.

Knapp

, & Yang

L.-L.

(2002). A Phenomenological Analysis of Long-Term Recollections of an Interpretive Program. Journal of Interpretation Research, 7 (2), 7–17.

21.

Knudson

D. M.

, Cable

T. T.

, & Beck

(2003). Interpretation of Cultural and Natural Resources. Venture Pub.

22.

Kohl

(2005). Putting environmental interpretation to work for conservation in a park setting: Conceptualizing principal conservation strategies. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 4 (1), 43–54.

23.

Magill

A. W.

(1995). Multicultural wildland users: a growing communication challenge. Environmental Professional, 17, 51–54.

24.

Munro

J. K.

, Morrison-Saunders

, & Hughes

(2008). Environmental interpretation evaluation in natural areas. Journal of Ecotourism, 7 (1), 1–14. http://doi.org/10.2167/joe137.0

25.

Orams

M. B.

(1997). The effectiveness of environmental education: can we turn tourists into ‘Greenies’? Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3, 295–306.

26.

Orams

M. B.

(2004). Using interpretation to manage nature-based tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 4 (2), 81–94.

27.

Orion

, & Hofstein

(1994). Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31 (10), 1097–1119. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660311005

28.

Powell

R. B.

, & Ham

S. H.

(2008). Can ecotourism interpretation really lead to pro-conservation knowledge, attitudes and behaviour? Evidence from the Galapagos Islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16 (4), 467–489.

29.

Ruchter

, Klar

, & Geiger

(2010). Comparing the effects of mobile computers and traditional approaches in environmental education. Computers & Education, 54 (4), 1054–1067. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.010

30.

Sharpe

G. W.

(1976). Interpreting the environment. John Wiley & Sons.

31.

Skibins

J. C.

, Powell

R. B.

, & Stern

M. J.

(2012). Exploring empirical support for interpretation's best practices. Journal of Interpretation Research, 17 (1), 25–44.

32.

Stewart

E. J.

, Hayward

B. M.

, Devlin

P. J.

, & Kirby

V. G.

(2003). The “place” of interpretation: A new approach to the evaluation of interpretation. Tourism Management, 19 (3), 257–266.

33.

Trotter

R. T.

(2014). Monster time and other ethnographic insights at Wupatki National Monument. In Machlis

G. E.

, & Field

D. R.

, On Interpretation: Sociology for Interpreters of Natural and Cultural History (pp. 130–149). Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University Press.

34.

Wearing

, & Neil

(2013). Ecotourism. Routledge.

35.

Weiler

, & Ham

S. H.

(2010). Development of a research instrument for evaluating the visitor outcomes of face-to-face interpretation. Visitor Studies, 13 (2), 187–205. http://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2010.509697

36.

Wiles

, & Hall

(2003). Understanding visitor attitudes, beliefs, and motivations about feeding wildlife: A literature synthesis and recommendations for developing signs to deter wildlife feeding. Moscow, Idaho, USA: University of Idaho, Department of Conservation Social Sciences.

37.

Zeppel

, & Muloin

(2008). Conservation benefits of interpretation on marine wildlife tours. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 13 (4), 280–294.