Beyond theory: applying environmental interpretation in the U.S. National Parks

Item

Title

Eng Beyond theory: applying environmental interpretation in the U.S. National Parks

Date

2002

Creator

Eng McClelland, Shannon J

Subject

Eng Environmental Studies

extracted text

BEYOND THEORY: APPLYING ENVIRONMENTAL INTERPRETATION
IN THE U.S. NATIONAL PARKS

by
Shannon J. McClelland

A Thesis: Essay of Distinction
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2002

This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Shannon J. McClelland

has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by

~MCL~cn/
Jean MacGregor MS
Member ofthe Faculty

Date

ABSTRACT
Beyond Theory: Applying Environmental Interpretation in the U.S. National Parks
By
Shannon J. McClelland

The national park system in the United States has a unique opportunity to instill in its
visitors an environmental ethic as they are surrounded by the shear wonder of nature .
Since its inception, a central mission of the National Park Service has been to educate its
visitors and to inspire a stewardship ethic for the continued protection of the parks.
Interpretation is the vehicle in which the National Park Service conveys its message to
the visiting public. As environmental issues increase in their abundance and severity, the
role and message of interpretation in national parks is increasingly more important.
Goals for Program Development in Environmental Interpretation developed by Douglass
Knapp and Trudi Yolk (1997) were used as a guide to evaluate the current policy and
stance of the National Park Service on interpretation, in addition to the practice of
interpretation in the national parks as explained by those who work in the field. My
analysis reveals that effective environmental interpretation, as outlined by Knapp and
Yolk (1997), have not been fully adopted in policy or practice. Several recommendations
and suggestions for future research are discussed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

1

Methods

6

Chapter 1: National Parks
History
National Park Service
Constraints to the System
Value of the national park system
Summary

8
8
14
' " .19
21
23

Chapter 2: Interpretation
What is interpretation?
History of interpretation in the national parks
The guiding princ iples of interpretation in the National Park Service
Interpretation training in the National Park Service
Benefits of interpretation
Constraints to the interpretive services
Summary

24
.24
25
.35
38
.40
.42
47

Chapter 3: Environmental Interpretation
History of environmental interpretation in the national parks
Environmental education and environmental interpretation
Current theory regarding the goals of environmental interpretat ion
Summary

.48
50
54
61
69

Chapter 4: Analysis and Recommendations
Analysis of current National Park Service documents
Analysis of responses from NPS interpretation employees
Recommendations
"

70
70
82
84

Chapter 5: Concluding Remarks

87

References

89

Bibliography

93

Appendices

95

111

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The Norris Museum, at Yellowstone's Norris Geyser Basin

29

Figure 2: Publicity for Ranger Activities, Circa 1939

.33

Figure 3: Post WWII Ranger Programs

34

Figure 4: EE Subset Model.

57

Figure 5: EE Intersection Model.

.58

Figure 6: Behavior Flow Chart

63

IV

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Essential Benchmark Competencies for Interpreters

39

Table 2: The NPS Interpretive Equation and the 15 Principles

39

Table 3: A Comparison of Formal and Informal Learning Settings

56

Table 4: A Comparison of Captive and Non-captive Audiences

60

Table 5: Categories ofInterpretation Principles, Goals and Objectives

62

Table 6: Categories ofInterpretive Objectives Related to Behavior Change Variables 63

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first like to thank Carolyn Dobbs for agreeing to be my faculty reader for this
immense undertaking. Her experience and knowledge concerning national parks was
very helpful. I am sincerely grateful to Jean MacGregor, who volunteered her time to
read and comment on my work. Her vast expertise and passion in environmental
education inspired me to pursue this topic in the first place, and her comments and
support were invaluable throughout the process. I also appreciate the time and hospitality
of Dee and Ross Toucher,and the insights of Tom Thomas who worked in education and
for the Park Service his whole life. I would also like to thank Norm Bishop and the
present and former employees of the National Park Service who agreed to participate in
this study. I am grateful to the technical support staff of the CAL, including Janet,
Duncan, Jon and Renee, for all the assistance and expertise they provided. I appreciate
the support and fellow commiseration of my thesis "support group"-Pam Edwards,
Cassandra Moore, and Krystal Kyer. And last, but by no means least, I wish to thank
Cathy for her seemingly endless support, understanding, and love during this process and
always.

VI

INTRODUCTION

This thesis investigates the current objectives and practices of environmental
interpretation in the U.S. national parks, and whether these address advocating an
environmental ethic that will be carried by visitors beyond the park boundary. My
analysis compares a current theory of environmental interpretation (which includes
behavior change objectives) with what is occurring in the national parks and in current
National Park Service interpretation documents. I make an argument for the need for a
more conscious commitment by the National Park Service to embrace the practice of
environmental interpretation and the role it can play in developing an environmentally
literate society.
A significant component of this thesis reviews the origins of national parks, the
National Park Service (NPS), and the practice of interpretation. I strongly believe that in
order to suggest feasible and appropriate solutions, it is crucial to have a historical
perspective of the setting in which the problem occurs (national parks), the agency
responsible for enacting change and proposing solutions (NPS), and the field in which the
solutions will occur (interpretation).
In general, determining whether or not the current practice of a particular field is

commensurate with a current theory is important for several reasons. First, it is important
to assess the feasibility and compatibility of current theories when they are applied in
practice. Theories that are not applicable to the fields they analyze are no more than
academic exercises. Second, if the theory is feasible but not being applied, then it, too,
remains an academic exercise. It is important to discover why the theory is or is not

being applied in the field. Third, it is important to evaluate current objectives and
practices for the field and, if needed, alter them to achieve the desired results. Fourth, and
most importantly, it is imperative to align current objectives and missions with the
practice that will achieve them-otherwise, good intentions will be only that, intentions.
As these generalities are applied to the field of environmental interpretation in the
national parks and to its current theory, the stakes are high. The national parks have a
unique opportunity to awaken a conservation ethic in their visitors because they (1) are
places where people may develop increased concern for nature through contact with the
natural environment; (2) provide opportunities for visitors to learn about natural systems
and contemplate their role in those systems; (3) are some of the few remaining relatively
undisturbed natural places where visitors can experience an alternative to degraded
environments; and (4) provide learning opportunities to visitors who have come for
leisure and to seek out new experiences (Negra & Manning 1997). While national parks
are not the only places where this learning can occur, they certainly have a unique
advantage in achieving these goals. The national parks attract hundreds of thousands of
visitors each year who come to experience the parks, and those visitors will encounter
staffwho are there to serve the general public. Richard West Sellars (1997) said it best
when he said:
Whatever benefit and enjoyment the national parks have contributed to
American life, they have undoubtedly intensified the aesthetic response of
millions of people to the beauty and the natural history of this continenta response that could then be pleasurable honed in more ordinary
surroundings closer to home. This benefit defies quantification, but surely
it has had some consequences of immense value, both for individuals and
for the nation.

2

The means for creating the environmentally literate society Sellars speaks of is through
education in the form of interpretation-specifically, environmental interpretation. The
burden of creating an environmentally literate society should not fall entirely on the
national park system; however, parks should be a central component in a larger strategy
of fostering a national conservation ethic. It is, therefore, crucial to analyze the current
practice and objectives of environmental interpretation in parks to determine if these
align with what the current theories conclude about behavior change methods. The
continued existence of the national park system depends upon a society that values the
protection of natural areas. However, the parks are no longer islands. The consumptive
actions taken by society outside the boundaries of the parks are having negative
ramifications on the environment inside the park boundaries. The connection between
protecting areas classified as national parks and protecting the environment outside of
these areas must be conveyed to the park visitors. Environmental interpretation is the
appropriate means to articulate this connection.
The process of determining, evaluating, and criticizing objectives for
interpretative programs has a history as old as the field itself. There has never been a
"golden age" of interpretation in which visitors were receiving the ideal quantity and
quality of interpretive messages. The reasons for this are many and are discussed in the
following pages. The dialogue concerning what the main goal of interpretation should be
has spanned decades-changing with the political and emotional climate of the times.
Participants in the dialogue have included presidents, Department of the Interior
personnel, NPS Directors, NPS interpreters, other interpretation professionals, citizens,
nonprofit national park support organizations, and academics-to name but a few. It is

~

-'

my intention, in writing this thesis, that this dialogue will continue and will strive to
produce a unified set of directives and practices for environmental interpretation in the
national parks of the United States.
Chapter I discusses the setting and agency in which the problem and solution will
occur-the national parks and the NPS. This chapter begins with a history of the national
parks themselves; followed by the history, current structure and mission of the National
Park Service; the constraints to the system as a whole; the value of the national park
system; and a summary of the chapter.
Chapter 2 discusses the field in which the change to a stronger commitment to the
practice of environmental interpretation will occur- the division of interpretation in the
national parks. This chapter includes sections on the definitions of interpretation; a
history of interpretation in the national parks; the guiding principles of interpretation in
the NPS; interpretation training in the NPS; the benefits of interpretation; the constraints
the interpretive services face; and a summary of the chapter.
Chapter 3 discusses the field that will emerge after the National Park Service
embraces the unique role they can play in fostering a environmental ethicenvironmental interpretation. This chapter draws distinctions between interpretation and
environmental interpretation, and between environmental education and environmental
interpretation; chronicles a history of environmental interpretation in the national parks;
outlines a current theory regarding the goals of environmental interpretation; and includes
a summary of the chapter.
Chapter 4 analyzes the current practice and objectives of environmental
interpretation in the National Park Service, and includes my recommendations for the

4

National Park Service as they implement future environmental interpretation
programming in the national parks.
Finally, Chapter 5 contains my final thoughts on the current situation of
environmental interpretation in the national parks, and the questions that need to be asked
in the future.

5

METHODS

The majority of the research effort in writing this document involved an extensive
literature review utilizing books, journal articles, web sites and official National Park
Service documents. The subject matter ranged from the mission of the National Park
Service and appropriate use of the national park system, to behavior modification theories
and their relevance to public education. The issues are complex and the resources
containing information on these topics are vast. However, I found little information of
the specific application of environmental interpretation in the national parks for the
purpose of instilling an environmental ethic. Hence, I chose exactly that topic for this
thesis.
In order to assess the current policy and practice of environmental interpretation

in the national parks I divided my analysis into two sections-eurrent stance and policy
on the goal of interpretation in the national parks as stated in official National Park
Service documents, and the actual practice of environmental interpretation in the parks as
discussed by those who work in the field. Both ofthese were compared and contrasted to
the current theory of effective environmental interpretation.
Because this is an Essay of Distinction Thesis (which does not involve generating
new data, but rather reexamining existing data or information to create a new perspective
on a problem), I went beyond the basic parameters in order to collect information from
practitioners in the field of interpretation in the national parks. The only way to assess
the current situation, I felt, was to question those who do this work everyday. Due to
time constraints, I was only able to question a few park interpreters from each of the three

6

national parks in Washington State-Mount Rainier National Park, North Cascades
National Park, and Olympic National Park. This is clearly a limitation, but as it is only
one element of my analysis I feel this effort is still valuable and will provide a starting
point for those wishing to research this specific area further.
Throughout my research and investigation into environmental interpretation in the
national parks, I was only concerned with the intent and message of interpretive programs
and services offered to the general adult visitor. That is to say, I did not examine the
goals of interpretation programming offered to children, school groups, organized field
trips, etc. My interest was in what the "average" adult visitor, who drove into the park
and spent at least one day exploring the park, would be exposed to as far as interpretation
messages.

7

NATIONAL PARKS

In order to address problems and recommend solutions, it is vital to have an
understanding of the setting and agency in which the problems occur. The following is a
discussion of the history and foundation of the national parks, the organization and
mission of its caretakers-the National Park Service-some of the constraints that work
against the protection of our parks, and the value of the "crown jewels" to the national
and international community.

History
It has been said that tracing the origin of the national park idea is like nailing jelly

to the wall (Everhart 1983). Although similarities to a national park existed in ancient
Greece, Rome and Persia, the idea of providing both protection and use of a public space
is a relatively modem concept (Everhart 1983). The exact origin (and motive) of the
national park idea, however, is subject to debate.
One account of the genesis of national parks became an integral part of national
park folklore and tradition, and is known simply as the campfire discussion (Sellars
1997). In September 1870, an expedition set out from Helena, Montana, to explore an
area, known as Yellowstone, that had been the source of fantastical tales from trappers
and early mountain men. Heading the expedition were General Henry D. Washburn,
Nathanial P. Langford and Lieutenant Gustavus C. Doane. As the trip neared its end and
the party was seated around the campfire, they spoke of the spectacular sights they had
seen over the course of the month's exploration. After considering the possible uses of

8

the area and the profits that could be made from tourism, they rejected the idea of private
ownership. Instead it was suggested and agreed that Yellowstone's awe-inspiring natural
wonders should be preserved for all to see in the form of a public park. Subsequent
articles and speeches by the members ofthe party following their return home, and
scientific explorations the following year which were documented in photography and
sketches, helped to generate widespread public interest in Yellowstone (Everhart 1972).
In a report to Congress, Doane exclaimed, "As a country for sightseers, it is without

parallel; as a field for scientific research, it promises great results; in the branches of
geology, mineralogy, botany, zoology, and ornithology, it is probably the greatest
laboratory that nature furnishes on the surface of the globe" (Everhart 1972). On March
1, 1872, a year and a half after the Washburn Expedition, President Ulysses S. Grant
signed the Yellowstone Park Act establishing the world's first national park.
A decidedly less romantic view of the origin of Yellowstone National Park and
the beginning of all parks, entails less-than altruistic motives on the part of the Washburn
Expedition. Corporate influence and the opportunity for a business venture have been
said to be the genesis for the expedition and the ensuing campfire discussion. Eager to
extend its tracks further west into the Montana Territory in the hopes of monopolizing the
northern and easiest route into Yellowstone, Northern Pacific Railroad Company met
with Langford in Philadelphia in June of 187G-three months before the expedition
(Sellars 1997). Financially backed by Northern Pacific, Langford headed to Montana and
successfully promoted the expedition. As the word spread about Yellowstone after the
expedition party had returned, Jay Cooke, Northern Pacific financier, lobbied to ensure
that the country comprising Yellowstone would be controlled by the federal government

9

and not by private investors. He reasoned that a government "reservation" would prevent
"squatters and claimants" from gaining control of the areas' most scenic features (Sellars
1997). Government control would be easier to deal with, Cooke continued, so it was
"important to do something speedily" through legislation (Sellars 1997). Success for
Northern Pacific came speedily indeed: the Yellowstone bill was introduced on
December 18, 1871, and enacted the following March.
An historical account of the birth of the national parks is incomplete without a
discussion of what some call the "true" first national park-Yosemite. Forty-niners,
heading back east after failing to strike the Mother Lode, gave accounts of the beauty of
the valley they called Yo Semite. The first white man discovery of the valley occurred in
1851 by soldiers, and although it was proclaimed by Horace Greely in 1859 to be the
"greatest marvel on the continent," the general public of the time had seldom, ifever,
heard of Yosemite (Everhart 1983). A scandal in which a Californian entrepreneur
stripped and reshaped the bark of a giant sequoia, then exhibited it for a fee in Eastern
cities and eventually London, enraged many who were concerned about the threat to
these unique forests (Everhart 1972). Although President Abraham Lincoln signed a bill
on June 30, 1864, transferring jurisdiction of Yosemite valley and a grove of giant
sequoias to the state of California, there is no evidence that the legislation was the result
of careful planning or even public support (Everhart 1983). The congressman who
introduced the legislation said only that "certain gentleman in California, gentlemen of
fortune, oftaste, and of refinement" had suggested the action (Everhart 1983). That was
apparently enough as the legislation passed Congress without debate, establishing

10

Yosemite under the unprecedented stipulation that the land "shall be held in public use,
resort and recreation, shall be held inalienable for all time" (Everhart 1983).
Whether Yosemite or Yellowstone was the first national park (or Hot Springs
which was set aside in 1832, "for the future disposal of the United States"), it is clear that
the climate of the country before either was established was anything but a conservation
ethic. At the end of the eighteenth century, the Romantic Movement in Europe fostered a
new attitude toward nature. The view that nature was harsh and oppressive was changing
to the idea that it was a place to experience beauty and self-restoration. The
philosophical minds of the times, David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson, who
espoused the ideals of transcendentalism, found an eager audience as the effects of
industrialization in New England towns became apparent. As small, pretty villages were
turned into sooty factory towns, the populace listened as Thoreau and Emerson
proclaimed that a return to nature was the only salvation (Worster 1979).
Also influencing the support for a national park movement was the country's
desire to establish a national identity in the global community (Runte 1979). Looking to
compete with the ancient cities, cathedrals and castles of Europe, the United States found
the symbols of its national identity in the numerous areas of natural beauty. Yet in the
mid-nineteenth century, the connection between transcendentalism and a burgeoning
national identity based on national features did not translate into a conservation
movement. That is not to say there were not individuals, such as John Muir, who were
proponents of a conservation! preservation ethic; however, there was no organized public
belief to set aside the natural wonders as a protective park. The belief of infinite
resources and an endless expanse of land fostered a manifest destiny response in settlers,

11

rather than transcendentalism inspired conservation land ethic. Alexis de Tocqueville,
who traveled in the United States in 1831 in search of primitive country, encountered
many who could not understand his craving for wilderness nor his disinterest in the
pursuits of the time-land speculation, timber stealing and the killing of Native
Americans in the name of progress (Everhart 1972). According to de Tocqueville,
Americans had a different set of values, they were "fixed upon another sight...the march
across these wilds, draining swamps, turning the course of rivers, peopling solitudes, and
subduing nature" (Everhart 1972).
As the West became settled and the idea of an endless frontier faded, the
American public began to see the value in protecting the nation's areas of natural beauty
and wonder. Also of prominent influence was the role tourism played. The 1872
Yellowstone legislation represents a declaration that tourism would be important in the
economy of the newly expanded American West (Sellars 1997). The Act established a
portion of the public domain where non-consumptive use was the goal, with unrestricted
use of private enterprise and exploitation of natural resources prohibited (Sellars 1997).
Americans had learned an early lesson in the consequences of despoiling their
natural wonders from the disastrous experience at Niagara Falls. Around 1800, tourist
promoters slowly accumulated the land around the falls. Travelers were hustled and
harassed and, by 1860, there was no point on the U.S. side from which to view the falls
without first paying a fee (Everhart 1983). The uncontrolled commercialization and
defacement of Niagara Falls became America's first environmental disgrace and resulted
in international embarrassment (RunteI979; Everhart 1983).

The success of the new

tourist economy and its investors, America had learned, depended on the preservation of

12

scemc areas. As the federal govenunent accepted this role of management, businesses
like Northern Pacific began to see the appea l of investi ng in the tourism trade in protected
areas.
Realizing that national treasures in need 0 f protection included areas other than
wi lderness expanses, in 1906 the park concept was expanded as Co ngress passed two
pieces of legislati on to indicate the change. In response to stories of looting and
destroyin g ancient Indian civilization in the Southwest, Congress passed the Antiqu ities
Act- providing legal protection against the damage or removal of any historic object
from the public lands of the United States. Additionally, the Antiquities Act gave the
president the power to declare any lands owned or acquired by the federal government a
nat ional mon ument if the area contained histo ric landmarks, historic or prehi storic
structures, or objects of historic or scientific interest (Everhart 1972). On the heels of this
legislation was the establishment of Mesa Verde National Park- not only to protect its
natural landscapes but, more importantly, to set aside the greatest collection of
archeolo gical ruins in the Southwest (Everhart 1972).
Before 1900, park legislation did nothing more than declare the lands for public
use and prohibit private ownership of the land. It cost very little to nothing to designate
the area (especiall y at a time when the fron tier seemed endle ss), and no laws were
included to protect the resources or enforce the regulations (Everhart 1983). Yellowstone
received no appropriations from Con gress, believing that some how the park could be
self-sustaining. Congress appointed the first superintendent withou t financial resources
for a staff or a salary (Ev erhart 1972). It was not long before those visiting Yellowstone
realized that it would not survive the increased vandalism to its natural features unless

asked the Secretary of War for assistance w ith managing the parks, and thu s began the
thirty-year control o f Yellowstone by the Un ited States Calvary.

The National Park Service

By the fall of 1914, the national par ks were in desperate need of an adm inistrat
leader. The 13 na tional parks and 20 nationa l monuments were under the con trol of

civilian and mi litary superintendents, who operated under loosely defined rule s and we
supervised by various secretaries of the Dep artment of the Interio r who typ ically had
little time for the parks (E verhart 1972). Press ure starting in 1912 from a group o f

national par k enth usias ts prompted President Taft to decl are tha t a unified, pro fessiona
age ncy should rep lace the curre nt pra ctice of haphazard management of the parks. Th
president sent a message to Congress that year urgin g them to establish a "Bureau of

National Parks" (Everhart 1983). Gifford Pinchot, amon g others, felt that the creation

a national park dep artment was redundant. Instead, he argued , the Forest Service-wh

was already familiar with balancing visitor recreation and conservation--eould carry o
the wo rk (Se llars 1997). A chance occurrence in 1914 sec ured the establ ishm ent of a
national park agency, that wh ich was outside the control of the Forest Service. Frankl
K. Lane, Secretary of the Interior in 1914, was looking for a man to admi nister the

national parks unde r the Interior 's wat ch wh en he received a letter from an old college

friend Stephen 1. Mather. Mather had recently visited Yosemite and Sequoi a Nationa
Parks and sent a lette r of com plaint about the horrib le conditions of the park s­
impassable trails, cattle grazing and opportunistic lumberjacks . Mather' s protest

14

the national parks are being run, come down to Washington and run them yourself '
(Everhart 1983). Mather, 47, a borax salesman and self-made millionaire and

philanthropist was an avid outdoorsman who often retreated to the wilderness to escap

the pressures of business (Everhart 1983). Although Mather had a profound love of th
wild country, he already had several interest s to occupy his time and was reluctant to
accept Lane ' s offer. Aware of Mather's reputation of a freewheeler and figuring he

would not want to get tied down in the procedural red tape of a federal bureaucracy, L
offered his personal aid Horace Albright to be Mather' s assistant (Everhart 1972).
Although both men were hesitant, Mather' s enthusiasm grew as he pictured the
possibility of creating a professional organization to administer the parks. His

enthusiasm was contagious-"I couldn ' t resist him," Albright recalled later (Everhart
1972).
f

In January 1915, Mather was sworn in as an Assistant to the Secretary of the

Interior. He and Albright had an enormo us task ahead of them- start ing with convinc

Congress to pass a bill to create a Nationa l Parks Bureau. President Woodrow Wilson
signed the National Parks Act on August 25, 1916, establishing the National Park
Service.

In the interim between the creation of Yellowstone National Park and the

establishment of the National Park Servic e, nearly half a century had passed. The res

was an enormous organizational hurdle: funding and staffing the new bureau, obtaini

substantial increases in appropriations from Congress for the existing national parks a
monu ments (now totaling 35), orchestrating a nationwide publicity campaign to gene

(hotels, camps, etc), and garnering additional support from Congress to establish new
parks and defeat bills attempting to designate substandard areas (Everhart 1983).
Mather 's charisma and Albrigh t' s legal skills proved to be a very effective combination
in moving the direction of the National Park Service forward and toward the high
standards that the Service stri ves for today.
The National Park Service is curr ently responsible for overseeing and protecting
384 parks (NP S 2001). The parks comprise a wide variety of settings and consist of over
20 different classifications including national park , national monument, national preserve,
national historic site, national historical park, national memorial, national battlefield,
national cemetery, national recreation area, national seashore, national lakeshore, national
river, national parkwa y, national trail, and others.

Organization of the National Park Service
The National Park Service (NPS) is a hierarchical organizatio n that begins with
the direct or in Washin gton, D.C., and ends with the man y individu als working at the park
level (Appendix 1). As is comm on with most federal agencies, the NPS is divided into
three levels of management: the central headquarters in Washington, D.C., from which
po licy originates, the regional offices (7) which are responsible for local coordin ation of
the parks, and the individual parks (384). Each park has a superintendent, whic h is the
top management position at the park level. Once compared to a captain of a ship, the
authoritative freedom of the superintendent has been curtailed in recent years (Everhart
1983). However, the priorit ive direction a park takes depends largely on the perso nal

16

2002). The role of park superintendent is still the most coveted positi on in the NPS
(Everhart 1983).
The next managemen t level up is that of the director of the various region al
offices. Because the national park system is geogr aphically scattered throughout the

nation, regional offices provide direction and support to tho se parks nearest its location

The regional offices presumably have a better understanding of the specific needs of t
er

ve,

parks in the vicinity than does the distant central office; however, the degree to which
authority of the national director is dele gated to the regional office directors or

superintendents varies with each director's style of leadership (Everhart 1983). Mathe

mal

and Albright were strong administrators, and that pattern has cont inued thro ughout the
years (Everhart 1983).

There is a tendency for the regional office to become the middle link in handin
down poli cy decisions to individual parks in such a way that assure s that each park' s

th

park

ito

ich

n of

the

hart

mt

need s are being met. It is described by Everhart (1983) as the "position lying between

two mountains of conceit." The conc eit of the park staff is that no one understands th
condition under which they must operate; whil e the conceit of the central office is tha

policy directives are a form of "d ivine intervention" (Everhart 1983). Thu s the role o
the regional office is humble, yet cruc ial.
The responsibil ity of the National Park Service is immense and necessitates a

large workforce. The Service employs 15,729 permanent employees, 5,548 temporary

seasonal empl oyees, and Volunt eers in Parks (VIP ) con tributes over 90, 000 vo luntee
(NP S 200 1).

Mission of the National Park Service
The legisla tion that established the Nationa l Park Serv ice, also call ed the Organic
Act. artic ulated the mission or purpose of the new bureau:
The service thus established sha ll prom ote and regulate the use of the Federal
areas known as national park s, monuments, and reservations . . .by such means and
measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, mon uments,
and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and
historic obj ects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjo yment of the
same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations.

While this is still the mission of the Service, the Service' s purposes have evolved over the
year s and now entail leadership responsibilities and func tions that are external to the
physical bound aries of the park system (NP S 1993). The National Park Service's
contem porary role is broad as it strives to preserve, protect and convey to the public the
meaning of the natural and cultural resources under its contro l. The Steering Comm ittee
for the Vail Agenda in 1993 identified six strategic objectives that comprise the twentyfirst century vision for the National Park Service (NPS 1993) :
Reso urce Stewardship and Pro tection-The primary responsibility of the NPS
must be prote ction of park reso urces.
Access and Enjoyment- Each park unit sho uld be managed to provide the
nation 's diverse public with access to and recreational and educational enjoyment
of the lessons cont ained in that unit, while maintaining unimpaired those unique
attributes that are its contribution to the national park sys tem .
Educ ation and Interpretation-It should be the responsibil ity of the NP S to
interpr et and convey eac h park units and the park syst ems' con tributions to the
natio n' s values, character, and experie nce.
18

international park affairs, active ly pursuing the mission of the national park
system and assisting others in managi ng their park resources and values.
Science and Research-The NPS must enga ge in a sustained and integrated
program of natural, cultural, and social scienc e resource management and
research aimed at acquiring and using the information needed to mana ge and
protect park resources.
Professional ism- The NPS must create and maintain a highly professional
the

organ ization and work force.

Although stated more expli citly in the National Parks Service Act of 1916, the

le

tee
y-

ment

que

:he

basic elements of the national park idea were contained in the Act of 1872 and provid
the guiding philosophy for Yellowstone and all the parks to follow . As the Service

strives to meet the ori ginal goals contained in the Organic Act, it also fills many othe

roles as well: " guardian of our div erse cultural and recreational resources; environme

advocate; world leader in the parks and preservation comm unity; and pio neer in the d
to protect America' s open space" (NP S 200 1(a».

Constraints to the system

As the Serv ice attempts to work towards its mission on a daily basis , there are
many constraints that work against it and the system of parks. The park system now
comprises 384 parks, covering 83.3 million acres (NPS 200 1). The autho rizations of

bills to create more par ks do not provide the additi onal funds and positions needed to

added eighteen new parks to the system, Congress reduced the number of full-time
Serv ice employees and cut the operating budget by $40 mil lion (Everhart 1983). As the
budget continues to be cut and more park s are added, the onl y recourse is to rearrange the
existing staff to provide co verage for all the parks (Everhart 1983 ). Th is has been a
reality for the parks for over 20 years. With the goal of eliminating the federal defic it,
the budget for the Na tional Park Servi ce is bei ng red uced to levels of funding inadequate
for essential operations and maintenance. Yet the constant pressure to pro tect areas of
national history and beauty, and thus make them parks , comes from the public and
conservation groups alike.
Because the Service is a federal agency, it is susceptible to the political climate of
the current presidential administration. It has not always been subj ect to the politics o f
the time , however. After the ceremony of swearing in Steven Math er as the first
Director of the Service in 1916, Secretary of the Interior Lane casually remarked, " By the
way Steve, I forgot to ask you, what are your pol itics?" (Everhart 1983). It was Lane's
way of saying that the Park Service wou ld not be subjected to po litical pressure s and that
Mather, a repub lican, was welcome in Woodrow Wilson 's democratic administration
(Everh art 1983). Mather went on to serve und er three pres idents, and for more than fifty
years no dire ctor was ever removed as a political meas ure (Everhart 1983). Tha t tradition
was broken in 1972, when Richard Nixon became president and personally gave the order
to fire Director George Hartzog (Everhart 1983). The selection o f the Directo r of the
National Park Service has been a politi cal assignment ever since, coi ncidin g with
chan ging administrations almost wit hout exception. The current director is Fran P.

20

u. S. Se nate on

July 12, 200 I-making her the first woman director in the history of th

National Park Service.

he

The Vail Agenda recognized the m any strengths of the Service, but also observ

that many employees and ob se rvers perceive that problems exist that work as roadbloc
in accomp lishing the mission of the Service (NP S 1993):

te

of

the

.. .[0] ood job performance is impeded by lowered education al
requ irem ents and eroding pro fessionalism ; that initiative is thwarted by
inadequately trained managers and pol iticized decision mak ing; that the
Serv ice lacks the information and resource management/researc h
capability it needs to be able to pursue and de fend its m ission and
resources in Washington, D. C and in the communities that surround the
park units; that the mission and the budg et is bei ng di luted by increasing
and tan gen tial resp onsi bilities; that there is a mismatch between the
demand that the park units be protected and the tools availabl e when
threats to park res ources and values are inc reasingly coming from outside
unit boundari es; and that communic ation within the Service repeatedl y
breaks down between field personnel and regional and headquarters
manage ment.
The result of these perceptions is that the National Park Service faces not on ly morale
and pe rformance problems, bu t also that these can thr eaten the agenc y' s cap acity to

lat

ty
Ion

der

manage and protect park reso urces (NPS 1993).

Value of th e national park system
The nati onal park system has the potential to bring together landscapes,
places, people and events that cont ribute to unique ways to the sh ared
nat ional exp eri ence and values of an otherwise high ly divers e people.
The Vail Agenda, 1993
Newton B. Drury, Director of the NP S from 1940-1 95 1, once obse rve d that

national par ks are set aside not solely to preserve scen ic landscapes and historic places

but rather they provide a greater return beca use of their unique value in " mi nistering to

transcends the physical benefit of pres erving land and biodiversity. John Mui r wrote in
1898:
Thousands of nerve-shak en, overci vilized peop le are beginning to find out
that going to the mountains is going ho me: that w ilderness is a necessity;
and that mo untain parks and reservations are useful no t only as fountains
of timber and irri gating rivers, but as fountains of life (qtd. in Til den
1957).

Altho ugh Muir' s observations occurred ov er one hundred years ago, his words still ho ld
true for many visitors today.
Polls done in the late 1980 ' s showed that a surprisingly large proportion of
Americans have visited the national parks and remember them- and the NPS -with
affection and admiration (Conservation Founda tion 1986). Moreover, the public
exp ressed a high er respect for exp eriences in national parks than in any other publicly
owned recreation areas (Conserv ation Foundation 1986).
The sp acious and maj estic scenery being preserve d in parks suc h as Yell owstone,
Sequoia, Yosemite and the Grand Canyon aroused a strong sense of pat riot ism and
roma nticized pride in America at the creation of each- and tha t pride still remains today.
Especially in these tenuous time s as Am ericans are seeking an alternative to the
everyday, chaotic world, the value of park s plays an even more important role. An
exam ple of this role was evidenced duri ng the afte rmath of September 11, 200 1. A pre ss
release from the Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton ann ounc ed that on Veterans ' Day
wee ken d all parks wou ld waive their entrance fees " to inspire national unity, hope, and
heal ing" (U.S. Dept. of the Inte rior 2001). It was hop ed that the gesture wo uld allow
Am ericans the opportun ity "to seek solace and inspiration fro m the Nation ' s [sic]

22

Tilden spoke o f the feelings of prot ection the parks insti ll in those who visit them :
The Ro mans had their lares and panates-their protective and benevolent
household and nei ghborh ood gods. At the risk of being to prec ious about
it, I should say that perhaps our Am erican lares and panates can best be
discov ere d in the national parks (T iIden 1968).

Many eloque nt speakers have said it in man y ways since the origins of the
parks themselves, but the message is the same: Th e national parks have valu e
beyond the shear benefit of saving open spaces. These wondrous places have the
capacity to dra w hundreds of thousands of visitors a year from acros s the globe,
and have the po tential to connect people with the natural wo rld . And while they
cannot do the j ob alone, national parks have an imp ortant role to play in creating
an env ironm entally literate society.

.e,

Summ ary
Although its origins are deb atab le, the found ation o f the national park
system is the protection of the nation 's rich historic, cu ltura l and nat ural
environm ents. The Nat ional Park Service acts as the system' s caretaker, with its
centra l mission to leave the parks " unimpaired for future generations." One role

'ess

.y

the Service plays in aim ing to achieve that mis sion is that of env ironm ental
advocate. From the time of their inception to present day, the national parks have
inspired, renewed , relaxed and impressed its visitors through their natural
wonders-what better atmosphere to advoc ate the protection of the Earth 's
resources than to those immersed in its ben efits?

Interpretation is the vehicle in wh ich the National Park Serv ice conveys its

message to the visiting pub lic. The following is a discussion of the vario us definitions of
interpretation, a history of interpretation in the parks, the purpos es of interpretat ion as
outli ned by the Nat ional Park Service, the training process of interpreter s in the Service,
the many benefits interpretive services provide to the public and the parks , and finally,
the constraints that work against interpreters in the Service as they attempt to reach the
public with their messa ge.

What is interpre tation?
Interpretation is a service pro vided to visitors at parks, forests , wildlife refuges,
and other recreation areas. Though visitors to these areas primarily come for relaxation,

inspiration, and/or recreation, man y are also interested in learning abou t the area they are

visiting. Interpretation provides insight into the cultura l and natural resources of the area
and thus, provides the visitor with an even more meaningful experience. Therefore,
interpretation is the communication link betw een the visitor and the resources (Sharpe
1982).
Interpretation has been defined in several way s. Freeman Tilden, often seen as

the " father of interpretation," describes interpretation as "[a]n educational activity which

aims to reveal meaning and relationships throu gh the use of original objects, by firstha nd
experience, and by illust rative media, rather than simp ly to communicate factual
information" (Tilden 1957). Harold Wallin, former Chie f Naturali st for the Cleveland

24


that the inte rpreter feels-a sensitivity to the beauty, complex ity, vanety and

interrelatedness of the environm ent; a se nse o f wonder; a desi re to kno w . It should hel
of

the visitor develop a fee ling a being at home in the enviro nmen t. It sho uld help the
visitor develop perception" (Wall in 1965). Do n A ldridg e, o f Scotland, de fined

int erp retation as " ... the art of explaining the place of man in his environment, to increa

visitor or pu blic awareness of the importance of th is relations hip, and to awaken a desi
to contribute to environmental conserv ation" (Aldridge 1972 ).

Howev er, Tilden (1957) be lieved the "true" interp reter will not be sati sfied wit

dict ionary defi nition, but wi ll go "beyond the app aren t to the real, be yond the part to th
who le, be yond a truth to a more important tru th." A ltho ugh the definitions vary, it is

5,

clear that the goals o f interpretation are man y. An historical perspective will give a

on,

better unde rstanding o f the foun dations and the purposes o f the contemporary practi ce

, are

interpre tati on in the national par ks.

area
History of interpretation in the nationa l parks

Ie

Long before interpretation was institu tionalized by the Nationa l Park Serv ice, a
in fact, before the Service existed, Jo hn Muir, in 187 1, recorded in his notebook, " I' ll

as

interpret the roc ks , learn the language of the flood, sto rm and the avalanc he . I' ll acqua

'hich

myself with the glaciers and wild gardens, and get as near the heart of the world as I ca

hand

(M ackintosh 1986). Although M uir's use of interp ret refers to personal understanding

nd

rather than communica tion, it has been cit ed as the first use for its later adoption by th
National Park Serv ice (Mackintosh 1986).

first phase of interpretation in the parks was the task of the U.S. Arm y. After the Calvary
gained contro l of Yellowstone in 1886, some of the soldiers stationed in the Upper
Geyser Basin took it upon themselves to expla in the therma l features to visitors, as there
were no other means for visitor inquiry (Mackintosh 1986). These early interp retiv e
talks, known as "cone talks," were severely lacking in scientific accuracy, but provided
entertainment for the park visitors (Mackintosh 1986). The "cone talks" were no worse
than the explanations from the commercial sources in the park, which were economically
motivated (Mackintosh 1986). Guides working out of the hotels were, by regulation, not
to charge a fee for their services; however, an accomplice of the guide would be a
"v isitor" and give a large tip at the end of the talk and encourag e others to follow his lead
(Shankland 1954).
Impro vements in early interpretation efforts came after the tum of the century.
The Wylie Camping Company, which offered tent accommodation to visitors to
Yellowstone, staffed teachers who, amon g other duties, gave lectures and camp fire
programs-although the motivation for providing these services is not clear (Mackintosh
1986). This trend was also evident in the future site of Rocky Mountain Nation al Park.
Enos Mills, a forefather in the practice of nature guidi ng, promoted and led guided hikes
with a purpose to foster appreciation of the natural values of the area (Brockman 1978).
In 1904, 15t Lt. Henry F. Pipes , a surgeon with the U.S. Calvary stationed in Yosemite,
designed a path labeled with 36 species of plants near Wawona; but unfortun ately, it did
not last as it was discovered to be on private property (Mackintosh 1986). The following
year, Frank Pinkle y, custodian of the Casa Grande Ruin Reservation (later to become

26


with an exhi bit of pre-historic artifacts collected from an archeo logical excavation in t
ruin (Mackin tosh 1986).
O f the early public education attempts, the largest audi ences were reached
through publications. In 19 11 , Laurence F. Sch meckebi er, the clerk in charge of

pub lications for the Department of the Interior, asked the superintendents of the larger
parks to subm it inform ation on access and accommodation to be made into a series of

y

handbooks (Mackintosh 1986). A second handboo k, promoted by Schm eckebier and
written by scie nt ists from the Smithsonian Institute and U.S. Geolog ical Survey,
interpreted major features of the parks (M ack intosh 1986). T itles inclu ded The Secret

ad

the Big Trees: Yosemite, Sequoia , and General Grant National Parks (1913) by
Ellsworth Huntington; Origin ofScenic Features of Glacier National Park (1914) by
M.R. Campbell; Mount Rainier and Its Glaciers (1914) by F.E. Matthes; and Fossil

Forests of Yellowstone National Park ( 1914) by F. H. Knowlton (Mackintosh 1986).

Although under the guise of public education, these publications were part of an Interi

ish

Department effort to build public support for the parks and po litical support for the

c.

creation of a bureau to manage them (Mackintosh 1986).

es

In 1916, Rob ert Sterling Yard, hired by National Park Service Director Steven

~).

Mat her to handl e park publicity, produced The National Parks Portfolio--a beautifull

>

"

illustr ated publication financed by 17 western rai lroad companies who were profiting

did

from park tourism (Mack intosh 1986). Two hundred and seventy-five thousand copie

vmg

were prin ted and handed out free of charge to prom inent Am ericans, inclu ding membe
of Congress (Ma ckintosh 1986) . The intro duction o f the publicati on was wr itten by

Secret ary of the Interior Frankli n Lane who wrote, " It is the destiny of the national parks
if wisely controlled, to become the public laboratories of natur e study for the Nation
[sic]"(Mackintosh 1986). While the surge in nation al park publicity was grounded in
econo mic and political motives it, nevertheless, advance d the prospect of an educational
purpose for the parks.
The Natio nal Park Service was established in 19 16, and began operations the

following year with Yard as the unofficial chief of the Service' s "education division"- a
non-Service position, though Mather cont inued to pay his salary (Mackintosh 1986).

A

second edition of The National Parks Portfolio was published in 1917 under Yard, and
included addit ions on the lesser known parks and monuments that were left out of the

first edition (Mackintosh 1986). That year the Service also distributed more than 128,00

park circu lars, 83,000 automobile guide maps , and 117,000 pamphlets titled Glimpses of
Our National Parks, in addition to 348, 000 feet of motion picture film delivered to
schools, churc hes and other organ izations (Mackintosh 1986). In his annual report for
19 17, Mather re-enforced his actions and declared "one of the chief funct ions of the
national park s and monuments is to serve educational purposes"(Everhart 1983).
A letter from Secretary Lane to Mather in 1918 constitutes the Service' s first
administrative statement of policy, and reiterated Mather and Lanes' bel ief in parks as

educational laboratories: "The educational, as well as the recreational, use of the nationa

parks should be encouraged in every practible way" (Mackintosh 1986). Although Lane
and Mather endorsed an educational purpose for the parks, not everybody shared their
VIew. Yard describes some of the obstacles he faced during the Service' s first years:
Educational promotion wasn 't much ofa success at first. No one in
Washington took any interest in it except Mr. Mather, spasmodically;

28

al

con cessionaires opposed it. Somebody po litically influen tia l on the
Pacific Coast sla mm ed the who le idea of edu cation in the nati on al pa rks
by lette r to his Senator w ho call ed up Secretary La ne abo ut it, and Lane
phoned dow n to Mather that he'd better go slow on that unpopu lar kind of
stu ff. Thus the cause pas se d under a heavy clou d just as things we re
beginnin g to look ho peful. Bu t I still kept my titl e, an d ham mered away
as inconspicuously as possible (Mac kintosh 1986) .

Wi thout the financ ial sup po rt of Co ngress in the form of park appropriations,

- a
A

fin ancing edu cation in the parks du ring the 1920's largel y came from outside
sp on sor ship . Private phil anthrop y from the Ca rneg ie Founda tion and the La ura Spelm

Roc kefeller Memo ria l, as well as othe rs, pro vided muc h need ed grants to be put toward
museum de velopment and ot her educational activi ties (M ackintosh 1986). Figure 1

000

illus trates an exa mple o f an interpretive muse um funded by the Rockefeller family.

of
Figure 1: The Norris Museu m, at Yellowstone's Norris Geyser Basin
r

s

ane
r

Sourc e: NPS Historic Photograph Coll ection s (Pictured in Sellars 1997)

Parks Conservation Assoc iation) and the Sierra Club provided publicity and educational
talks inside the parks (Mackintosh 1986). Much of the interpretation that was happening
in the parks at the time was undertaken by out side partie s- usually university pro fessors,
teach ers and scientists.
As these privately funded and often voluntary services began to increase in
pop ularity, the Park Servic e initiated the first reasonably comprehensive interpretation
pro grams in Yosemite and Yellowston e in 1920 (Mackintosh 1986). [It is impo rtant to
note here that in its initial stages the National Park Service interpretive pro gram lacked a
distinctive name whic h adequately described its primary goal (Brockman 1977). The
term interpretation did not come into general use unt il the late 1930' s--even after it was
overlooked as a possible designation at a meeting of the National Park Educ ational
Advisory Board in 1930 (Bro ckman 1977)]. The Yosemite Free Nature Guide Service
included guid ed hik es, evening campfire talks and film-illustrated lectures (Mackintosh
1986). Dr. Harold C. Bryant, the director of the Nature Guide Service, reported the first
season a success: "The response has been so great that we are sure there wi ll be
sufficient demand not onl y to continue the work in Yosemite National Park but to extend
it to other par ks" (Brockm an 1978). That year, Superintendent Horace Albright of
Yellow stone made Ranger Milton P. Skinner the Serv ice's first officially designated park
naturalist- the original title for interpreters (Mackintosh 1986).
Although there was still no federal funding for educational related acti vities in the
parks, museum develo pment on the backs of privately funded grants was soon to follow.
In 1920, Ma ther' s annual report called for "the early establishmen t of adequate museums

30


1986). Whil e this idea blossomed, some wanted to take the idea of educating visitors

g

new heights. Herm an C. Bumpus, who had been the first director of the Am erican

5,

Museum of Natur al History in New York, was heavily involved in the development of

museums in Yosemite and promoted the idea of a "focal poi nt" lookout faci lity, believ
this is what park museums should represent:

a

The contro lling fact gov erning the de velo pment of educational work in the
nation al parks is that within these reservations multitude s are brough t
directly in contact with striking examples o f Nature 's [sic] handicraft. To
lead these people away from direct contact with Nature [sic].. .is contrary
to the spirit of the enterprise. The real mus eum is outside the wall s of the
building and the purpose of the museum work is to render the out-of-doors
intelligible. Is it out of this conception that a smaller specialized museum,
the trailside museum, takes its origin (M ackintosh 1986).

Other national parks followed the lead of Yosemite and Yellowstone and bega

offerin g interpretive lectures, guided hikes, pu blications, exhibits and information boo
11

(Mackintosh 1986). To sup port and encour age these park program s, Mather made An

st

Hall chie f naturalist of the Servic e ' s Education Di vision in 1923, which had its officia
headquarters at the Un ivers ity o f California at Berkeley (M ackintosh 1986 ). The

md

Education Divisio n developed administrative plans for the educational acti vities of ea

individual park in coop eration with the park sup erintendents and naturalists (Bryant &

Atw ood 1936). Mather voiced strong support for the Edu cation Division and gave it t
func tion of overseeing and setting standards for hiring park naturalists (Mackintosh
,the

1986) . To provide better training to early inte rpreters, the National Park Service and

)W .

Haro ld Bryant founded the Yos emite School of Fiel d Natural History in 1925. The

lffiS

seven-week course offered in the summer was limited to 20 students, and the prerequi

percent 0 f the program was spent in field observation, a dist inction that set it apart from
traditi onal academia (Mackintosh 1986). Many seasonal and permanent Serv ice

interp reters were trained at the schoo l, which operated each summer (except during the

war) until 1953 (Mackintosh 1986). The importance of the program wa s summarized b

Clark ( 1949) in an unpublished doctoral dissertation about inte rpretive programs in the
parks:
While it is true that earlier work in the direction of nature guiding and
public interpretive service had been carried on in several of the national
par ks, the Yosemite Program marked the beginn ing of carefully directed
and planned public contact work which was to spread throughout the
national parks and become the most direct and most important function of
the [S]ervice.

In 1928, at Mather 's urging and rea lizing the importance of advancing the

educa tional pos sibilities o f the parks, Secretary of the Interior Roy O. West appointed t

Committee on Study of Educa tional Pro blems in the National Parks (Bryan t & Atwood
1936). The committee recomm ended a perm anent educational advisory board,

established the next year; and also called for an appoi ntmen t o f a Park Serv ice educatio
chief that wou ld have headquarters in Washington (Bryant & Atwood 1936 ). The

committee' s advice was heeded and , in 1930, Harold C. Bryant was appointed assistan
director o f the new Branch of Research and Educ ation (Bryant & Atw ood 1936). As
assistant director, Bryant was in charge of all educational acti vit ies, with Wallace W.

Atwood, Jr., in charge of earth science education. A year later, Verne E. Ch atelain jo in

the division as assistant director for historical and archeological education; thus fulfilli

32

1936).

Pa rk interpretive progra ms, in bo th sta te and national parks, enj oyed a period o

ex pansion in the 1930 ' s throu gh the availability of em e rge ncy federal fund s and pub lic
Figure 2: Publicity for Ranger Activities, Circa 1939

R

E

works agencies s uc h as the Wo rks Progress
Administration (W PA) and the C iv ilian
C onservation Corps (CC C ) (Sh arpe 1982).

A n e xamp le of pub lici ty pro vided by WPA f

the " ranger natu ralist se rvice" at Yellowston
illustrated in Figure 2. The Branch of
Recreation, La nd Planning ,
and State Coo perati on o f the Nation al Pa rk

le

Serv ice appointed rec reation plan ners who

assisted se ventee n states in starting natur alis
n

Source: NPS 1939

programs (S harpe 1982). Unfortunate ly, most of these progra ms were term inated with

the on se t o f W orld W ar II and did not make a quic k recover y afte r the war- despite lar
visi tor atte ndance in the parks (Sharpe 1982). Figure 3 illustrates large, postwar

led

ng

att endance at ranger-led ac tivities .

Source: NPS Historic Photogra ph Collections (pictured in Sellars 1997)

Although the role of education seem ed to be gaining in status as it was giv
place in the organization of the N ational Park Service, the function of

naturalists/interp reters was not well received by superintendent s and rang ers . Des

form al training the Yosem ite School provide d, candidates with solid qua lifica tions
training were not plentiful and interpretive programs sometimes suffered (M ackin

1986). Some of the early interpreters had been acad emically trained scie ntists and

no t relay information to the visitors in a way that was digestible. Altho ugh ineffec

interpreters such as these were dismissed, many academics did not view park natu

with respect or recogn ize the diffic ulty of their task. Franck Bro ckm an (1977), an
interpreter for Mount Rainer National Park since 1928, remembers it as foll ows :

Science had not gained the status typ ical of recent years, and early Park Se
naturalists were often con sidered to be impractical "sc ientists." Conversel
scientists of that time, though respecting the zea l and dedication of park
nat uralists, were well awa re of their limited scientific backgrounds. So, in
sense, early National Park Service naturali sts were neith er fish nor fowl. T

34

scientific community. Not uncommonly they were referred to by their associ
as "nature fakers," "posy pickers," or "Sunday supplement scientists."

Because of these beliefs, integration of interpreters into park management wa
slow process. Harold Bryant, on an inspection trip of the parks in 1935, reported to

Director Amo B. Cammerer that the requests to place naturalists in "key positions" h
not been carried out by the superintendents (Mackintosh 1986). In addition, he saw

gain in effort to make the naturalist an expert ...on all matters pertaining to education

natural history," and found that "the chief criticism of the naturalist service ... [was] s
that of shallowness of background..."(Mackintosh 1986). Although these trends

continued with interpreters feeling out of the mainstream of the organization, from th

1930's on few doubted the importance of interpretation and its significant role in the
mission of the National Park Service (Mackintosh 1986).

: the
The guiding principles of interpretation in the National Park Service

h

auld

.ve

Our function lies rather in the inspirational enthusiasm which we can develop
among our visitors-an enthusiasm based upon a sympathetic interpretation
main things that the parks represent, whether these be the wonder of animate
things that the parks represent, whether these be the story of creation as writt
the rocks, or the history of forgotten races as recorded by their picturesque
dwellings .
Education Division of NPS (1

ilists
Freeman Tilden's six principles of interpretation, included in Interpreting Our

Heritage (1957), became the bible for all interpreters. These six have been expande

rvice
y, true
.a

fhey

over the years and in their work Interpretation for the

ir Century (1998), Larry Be

are as follows-listing Tilden's first:

1. Any interpretation that does not somehow relate to what is being displaye

described to something within the personality or experience of the visitor
sterile.

2. Information, as such, is not Interpretation. Interpretation is revelation bas
upon information, but they are entirely different things. However, all
interpretation includes information.
3. Interpretation is an art, which combines many arts, whether the materials

presented are scientific, historical or architectural. Any art is in some deg
teachable.
4. The chief aim of Interpretation is not instruction, but provocation.

5. Interpretation should aim to present a whole rather than a part, and must a
itself to the whole man rather than any phase.

6. Interpretation addressed to children (up to the age of twelve) should not b

dilution of the presentation to adults, but should follow a fundamentally d
approach.

7. Every place has a history. Interpreters can bring the past alive to make th
present more enjoyable and the future more meaningful.
8. High technology can reveal the world in exciting new ways. However,
incorporating this technology into the interpretive program must be done
foresight and care.

36

accuracy) of information presented. Focused, well-researched interpretation
be more powerful than a longer discourse.

>e

10. Before applying the arts in interpretation, the interpreter must be familiar wi
basic communication techniques. Quality interpretation depends on the
interpreter's knowledge and skills, which should be developed continually.

11. Interpretive writing should address what readers would like to know, with th
authority of wisdom and the humility and care that comes with it.
12. The overall interpretive program must be capable of attracting support­

financial, volunteer, political, and administrative-whatever support is need
for the program to flourish.
13. Interpretation should instill in people the ability, and the desire to sense the

:ss

beauty in their surroundings-to provide spiritual uplift and to encourage
resource preservation.

14. Interpreters can promote optimal experiences through intentional and though

-ent

program and facility design.

15. Passion is the essential ingredient for powerful and effective interpretation

passion for the resource and for those people who come to be inspired by the
same [resource].

1

In 1995, the National Leadership council of the National Park Service adopted a ten-year
plan for the training and development of Service employees (NPS 1999). It included the
Employee Training and Development Strategy, which defined 16 career fields in the
NPS, and developed over 225 essential competencies for the various jobs within each
field. A set of Universal Essential Competencies (now called Universal Competencies)
was also developed and applies to all employees in the Service (NPS 1996). This is the
first time the Park Service has attempted to define essential competencies for all its
employees (NPS 1996). The purpose of the plan is H( 1) to provide definition to Park
Service employees and their supervisors about essential competencies required for them
to perform their jobs at the entry, developmental, and full performance levels; (2) to give
employees insights into the full spectrum ofjob requirements in the Service so they can
better plan their careers; and (3) to enable the Service's Training and Development
Community to base its programs on essential needs identified by employees and
supervisors" (NPS 1996). The National Park Service's Interpretive Development
Program is a training initiative to foster interpretive excellence based on the Employee
Training and Development Strategy, and was developed through the input of over 300
interpreters (Dahlen et. al. 1996). The program identifies eleven competencies for park
interpreters to attain and demonstrate. These competencies are listed in Table 1.

38

Entry Level:

--Interpretation and the NPS Mission (Module 101)

--Effective Informal Visitor Contacts (Module 102)

--Effective Interpretive Talk (Module 103)


Developmental Level:

--Conducted Actvities

--Demonstrations and Other Illustrated Programs (Module 210)

--Effective Interpretive Writing (Module 220)

--Effective Curriculurabased Programs (Module 230)


Full Performance Level:

--Planning Park Interpretation (Module 310)

--Interpretive Media Development (Module 311)

--Interpretive Leadership: Training and Coaching (Module 330)

--Interpretive Research and Resource Liaison (Module 340)


Source: NPS 1996
The framework the program uses is a mathematical model called the "Interpret

Equation" to explain the "how and why" of interpretation (Dahlen et. al. 1996). Alt

mathematical in its approach, the "Interpretive Equation" is designed to provide a vi

outcome and not to actually compute numerical values. The equation is (Knowledg

resource + Knowledge of the audience) + Appropriate Technology = Interpretive O
(Dahlen et. al. 1996). Table 2 illustrates the model and the applicable principles.
Table 2: The NPS Interpretive Equation and the 15 Principles
Interpretive Equation: (Kr + Ka) + AT = 10
Kr

=Knowledge of the resource

15 Principles
2. 3, 5. 9.11,13

Ka = Knowledge of the audience

1,6.7.12

AT = Appropriate Technology

8

10 = Interpretive Opportunity

4,10.14,15

Source: Beck and Cable 1998

not only know the tangible concepts related to the resource, but also must be aware of th
intangible ideas associated with the resource. In a wilderness setting, intangible ideas

represented might be harmony, balance, self-sufficiency, spirituality and others. Include

part of the equation is the knowledge of past and present issues and controversies relatin
site, and the ability to articulate differing points of view (Beck & Cable 1998).
Knowledge of the audience (Ka) is a difficult, but crucial part of the Interpretive

Equation. Without knowledge about the motivations, desires, and needs of the audience
it is very difficult to reach them with the interpretive message (Beck & Cable 1998).

Determining what the audience is looking for, however, is sometimes difficult to assess.
The use of appropriate technology (AT) is an important factor in delivering the
interpretive message. Selecting the best technique to deliver the message comes after
determining the theme (Kr) and goals (Ka) (Beck & Cable 1998).

Interpretive opportunities (10) is the goal of the Interpretive Equation. Interpreters
have no guarantee that their message will have the desired affect with every visitor.
What can be controlled, through planning and presentation, is creating the optimal
opportunity for the visitor to be receptive to the message.

Benefits of interpretation
The interpretive profession provides many benefits to the parks and beyond. In

the forward to Tilden's second edition of Interpreting Our Heritage (1977), Director of
the NPS Gary Everhart showed the value of interpretation when he said, "We consider

40

Service." Sharpe (1982) compiled the following list of the benefits of interpretation:
1. Interpretation contributes directly to the enrichment of visitor experiences.

d in this

g to the

2. Interpretation makes visitors aware of their place in the total environment and
gives them a better understanding of the complexities of coexisting with that
environment.
3. Interpretation may broaden the visitor's horizons beyond the park or forest

boundary, giving a greater understanding of the total natural resources picture

4. Interpretation informs the public and an informed public may make wiser


s.

decisions on matters related to natural resources management.


5. Interpretation may reduce the unnecessary destruction of park property, resul
in lower maintenance and replacement costs.

6. Interpretation provides a means of moving people subtly from sensitive areas

:rs

sites that can better sustain heavy human impact, thus protecting the environm

7. Interpretation is a way to improve public image [for the Service] and establis
public support.

8. Interpretation may instill in a visitor a sense of pride in their country or in the
region's culture and heritage.
9. Interpretation may assist in the successful promotion of parks where tourism

In
r of

ler

essential to an area's economy.

10. Interpretation may be effective in preserving a significant historic site or natu
area by arousing citizen concern.

in a sensible and logical way .

If there is a need to protect the natural and cultural resources, then there is a need
for interpretation. The old adage, and mantra of the National Park Service, still applies
today-through education comes understanding, through understanding comes
appreciation, and through appreciation comes protection. The founding principle of the
national park system is protection. In order to arrive at the desired end result, we must
support the path in achieving it. That path is education, and the means for that path is
interpretation.

Constraints to the interpretive services
The value and potential of the national park system, as a means of expressing the
national experience to a diverse audience, depends on interpretation to convey the
message. Unfortunately, the intrinsic need for interpretation gets lost in the bureaucratic
shuffle as the cost effectiveness of all aspects of park management vie for spots in the
new budget allocations. In a 1972 report from the Secretary of the Interior's Advisory
Board on the national park system, it was stated, "We must conclude generally... that
interpretive positions, facilities, and performance are at a low point for recent decades .. "
On a piecemeal basis , interpretation appears to have suffered most in the competition
between programs for inadequate budgets and from personnel restrictions of recent
years " (Mackintosh 1986) . In response, Director Hartzog ordered another Service-wide
study of interpretation. Nearly a thousand employees returned a questionnaire, detailing

42

revealed a decline in the importance and professionalism of interpretation in the Servi

(Mackintosh 1986). Everhart outlined several reasons for the decline in his report to t
Director in 1973: organizational changes had lumped interpretation with resources

management in many parks, often removing people with interpretive backgrounds from

leadership; the de-professionalizing tendency of the new park technician series; increa
visitation and expansion of the park system without matched funding and pers onnel

increases for interpretation; and increased emphasis on law enforcement at the expens
interpretative positions and training (Mackintosh 1986) .

The new park technician series came about in the late sixties and had disastrou
effects on the morale of those in interpretation. Under the new classification system,

chief interpreters in the larger parks were made staff to their superintendents, no longe
supervising interpreters in the field (Mackintosh 1986). Most field interpreters were

placed in the sub-professional category GS-026, and were no longer supervised by ch
interpreters, but were supervised by district mangers that were also responsible for
resources management---often these were rangers without interpretive backgrounds
(Mackintosh 1986). Many viewed the subjugation of interpreters under the ranger

division as one more step in the power struggle between rangers and interpreters-wag
by park superintendents and regional directors who usually ascended the career ladde
the ranger division (Bishop, personal communication, May 28, 2002). Norm Bishop,

interpreter for NPS at the time, remembers the effect this had on interpretation: To th
Ie

credit , some rangers made pretty good chiefs of visitor services. Others didn't have a

it (Bishop, personal communication, May 28, 2002).
Higher-level interpreters fit into the GS-025 classification of ranger-the titles of
park naturalist, park historian, and park archeologist were eliminated (Mackintosh 1986).
The new system also allowed less qualified people into interpretive positions and saved
money by lowering their pay scale (GS level) . The attempt was to place less qualified
people into the less demanding jobs in interpretation-such as staffing the information
desks where most of the questions revolve around the location of the nearest restroom or
a certain attraction (Bishop, personal communication, May 28, 2002) . The problem was
the Techs, as they were called, were equally bored with desk duty and for the sake of
variety were given other interpretive duties-such as nature walks-which they were
unqualified for (Bishop, personal communication, May 28,2002). This reflected badly
on the interpretive services as a whole and contributed to the belief that anyone can
interpret, trained or not.
The GS-025 series was primarily a career ladder for management. Because those
who chose to remain interpretive specialists had little room for advancement, there was
little incentive to do so. (Mackintosh 1986). To add insult to injury, interpretation was
downgraded to division status in 1976 and fell off the Washington organizational chart
altogether in 1983, when it was combined with several other functions under Visitor
Services Division (Mackintosh 1986). Today, interpretation is one often departments
included in the Park Operations and Education Division (see Appendix 2).
Unfortunately, twenty years later the same problems were evident in
interpretation. The National Park Service's 75 th Anniversary Symposium in 1991 in Vail,

44

the national park system. It was comprised of indivi duals from the NPS, other
government agencies, the nonprofit sector, universities and conununity members, and

provided recommendations to the director ofNPS for solutions to various problems the

parks face. The report became known as The Vail Agenda. Strategic Objective 3 of th

Agenda critiqued the field of education and interpretation in the park system (NPS 199
Unfortunately, the Service conunitment, and ability to conunit, to a
mission of proactive education and interpretation as a high priority has
waxed and waned. Educational outreach is rare and not systemic,
depending on the admirable initiatives of individual superintendents,
rangers, and interpreters. Interpretation, meanwhile, is seen by the work
force as having often been assigned a low-level priority with a ' minimum
is enough' standard. In part , this reflects thinning and instability in
funding and the channeling of budgets into other mandated responsibilities
and functions; in part it reflects ambivalence about encouraging visitation;
in part , in reflects a lack of statutory language supporting education and
interpretation as core objectives of the park system.

In addition, the conunittee emphasized that conveying the meaning of the park 's

resources to the public should be seen as the central reason for the existence of the par

se

in the first place, and not an extraneous activity (NPS 1993). The Vail Agenda (1993)
expressed concern in the delivery of this message:
Unfortunately, there is widespread concern that the story is going untold;
that without the resources, training, research, appropriate facilities, and
leadership, the Service is in danger of becoming merely a provider of
"drive through" tourism, or perhaps, merely a traffic cop stationed at
scenic, interesting, or old places.

Nevertheless, interpretive programs have regul arly been sacrificed in the face of
competing demands on the system and the Service. As a consequence of staff cuts,
interpretive programs often are the first to face the chopping block. In 1975, Bill
Vail,

Everhart stated in his Report on National Park Service Interpretation that "a de-emph

restaurant, a campground, or a gas station would have " (qtd. in Mackinto sh 1986). In
essence, interpretive services are seen as nonessential to park functioning. This only
enhances drive-thru tourism, providing no opportunity for visitors to stop and learn more .
In addition, the message this sends to interpreters is that their programs are not a priority
and that any effort or innovation put to that end will not only go unrewarded, but is likely
to be cut altogether.
This problem is exacerbated as interpreters are not always current in the
knowledge of the fields they interpret, or even informed about park management poli cies
(NPS 1993). One reason for this isolation from research and resource management is the
heavy reliance on seasonal employees and volunteers. Over 85% of the those who work
in the parks are seasonal employees or volunteers-volunteers alone accounting for
nearly 81 % (NPS 2001). While the volunteers and seasonals playa huge role in the
continual functioning of the parks themselves, this dependence on a short-term,
minimally trained and/or unpaid workforce weakens the uniformity-and sometimes the
quality-of programs and information presented. Chapter 4 will discuss this further.
To make matters worse, the Service is often unable to recruit or retain qualified
individuals who have been academically trained in the fields they interpret. Part of this
difficulty lies in the transient nature of working for the Service. Many promotions
involve transferring to different parks, sometimes at opposite ends of the country. This
may not be an attractive prospect for a highly qualified individual that has a family to
consider. It is not surprising, under these circumstances, that those who work for the
National Park Service consider it not just an employer, but a family (Everhart 1983).

46


Interpretation provides a connection for the visito r to the park resources
and has many clear benefits for the park, the visitor, and the nation as a whole.
Even in the face of competing demands on the National Park Service,
interpretation has enjoyed a long history of stri ving to bring the inherent meaning
of the natural surroundings to the park visitor. The next chapter gives the
framework that will move interpretation in the national parks to a level
necessitated by the extent and severity of environmental threats not only in the
parks, but to the planet itself.

Environmental interpretation starts at" the park and with the visitors who use it; but
unlike traditional interpretation, the basic objective for environmental interpretation is to
motivate the public to take environmental reform actions once they leave the park
(Brown 1971). These actions include any actions in which a change in behavior occurs
that reflects an increased concern for environmental issues. One definition given by
William Brown in Islands a/Hope: Parks and Recreation in Environmental Crisis ( 197 1)
explains it as such : Environmental interpretation is that body of communications,
devices, and facilities that conveys environmental knowledge, stimulates discourse on
environmental problems, and results in environmental reform. A more applicable
definition of the goal of environmental interpretation in the parks comes from the Council
of Europe (1976): Environmental interpretation is the art of explaining the relationship
between man and his environment to the general public in order to increase
environmental awareness and to awaken a desire to contribute to environmental
conservation.
As the awareness of ecological processes and the degradation to natural
resources at the hand of humans came to the public 's attention in the 1960's, many in the
Service were concerned and felt that the bureau could do more to promote public
awareness and action regarding environmental problems (Mackintosh 1986). Assistant
Director for Interpretation Bill Everhart, writing in the December 1967 NPS Interpreters '
Newsletter, declared that interpretation was not doing enough. Simply interpreting park

48


achieving:
[W]e have had a tendency to interpret a park in terms of its
resources. We have not effectively carried out an
educational campaign to further the general cause of
conservation . . . Only through an environmental approach
to interpretation can an organization like ours, which has
both Yosemite and the Statue of Liberty, achieve its
purpose of making the park visitor's experience fully
significant (qtd . in Mackintosh 1986).

Although the term environmental interpretation was being used by people in t
1960's, the concept of using park interpretation for the greater goal of environmental
awareness and reform was present in the 1950's. According to Bill Dunmire,
"Progressive park naturalists in the 50's would have been perfectly comfortable with

cil

word ecology and its implications, long before it became fashionable with the general
public" (Mackintosh 1986). In 1953, Director Conrad L. Wirth distributed a
memorandum entitled, Securing Protection and Conservat ion Objectives Through

Interpretation (Appendix 3). It urged a conservation component in all interpretive

programs, keeping in balance with the main theme presented. This general conscious
among interpreters is echoed in one of Tilden's six principles of interpretation in
the

Interpreting Our Heritage (1957). The fourth principle states that the chief aim of
interpretation is not instruction, but provocation [emphasis mine] . According to

mt

«ers

Webster's Dictionary, provoke means "to stir to a desired feeling or action" (Gove 19
The intended desired feeling or action, in keeping with the Park Service's mission, is

evoke a conservation ethic. So while Tilden 's principles have been a guiding force i

the theory and practice of interpretation since 1957, the role interpretation in the park

environmental education (EE).
The following discusses the history of environmental interpretation in the parks,
the link between environmental interpretation and environmental education, and the
current theory of the goals for effective environmental interpretation.

History of environmental interpretation in the national parks
Assistant director of interpretation Bill Everhart's call to action in December of
1967 got results. Beginning in 1968, the Service worked with Mario Menesini, director
of the Educational Consulting Service, on a project entitled, National Environmental
Education Development (NEED) (Mackintosh 1986). The purpose of NEED was to
develop environmental awareness and values through the application of five "strands":

(l) variety and similarities, (2) patterns, (3) interrelation and interdependence, (4)
continuity and change, and (5) adaptation and evolution (Mackintosh 1986) . These
subjects were supposed to be integrated into all subjects taught in the schools. More
importantly, for the purpose of this paper, these strands were also to be included in all
park interpretive programs (Mackintosh 1986). For natural resource park interpreters this
approach came naturally; however, those interpreting battlefields, birthplaces, and other
historic sites had a more difficult time incorporating the environmental strands into
historic interpretive programming (Mackintosh 1986). Many historians thought it
ridiculous to have to include them at all (Mackintosh 1986).

50


for the Eastern Service Center in Washington, D.C. In a letter to the NPS Interpreters'
Newsletter in 1970, he spoke of his frustration shared by many in his position:

I would most respectfully ask our environmental enthusiasts to please,
please leave the historical areas alone . There is nothing ecological about
most of them. They were established to commemorate a significant
person , event, or period in American history. They should be interpreted
according to the discipline of history, not ecology (qtd. in Mackintosh
1986).

Sheire's request was not heeded as the environmental movement in the nation picked up
speed as the first Earth Day approached . Q. Boyd Evison, chief of the new Division of
Environmental Projects at Harpers Ferry Center, capitalized on the momentum of the
national movement and increased publicity and established an Environmental Education
Task Force (Mackintosh 1986). Its mission was to "expedite the establishment of an
environmental education program that is integral to operations at all levels of the

National Park Service-a program which will also assist public and private organization
concerned with the promotion of a national environmental ethic" [emphasis mine]
(Evison 1970).
Training initiatives were also being proposed to prepare interpreters to meet the
new directives. In 1972 another new unit, the Office of Environmental Interpretation,

was added to the Washington headquarters under the supervision of Vernon C. (Tommy)
Gilbert, Jr., who coordinated a partnership with George Williams College in Chicago
(Mackintosh 1986). The objectives of the partnership were the "administration of a
program designed to study effective EE, interpretation, and sociological aspects of park
programs in cooperation with the College [sic] and participation in a related program of

5

rooted in promoting environmental interpretation, it actually res ulted from NPS Director
Hartzog's interest in bringing the Service's EE programs to urban areas (Mackintosh
1986). Whatever its intention, the program lasted only two years and according to Steven

H. Lewis, trainer form the Mather Training Center who headed up the program, it did not
prove to be a success (Mackintosh 1986) . Although interpretive supervisors as well as
trainees were involved in the program, there was no long-term follow up to see whether
or not the graduates were applying their knowledge in the field (Mackintosh 1986).
Meanwhile, environmental interpretation for park visitors "had matured to a less
self-conscious function" (Mackintosh 1986). This could be read as environmental
interpretation provided to the visitors lacked a system-wide structure or goals and was,
more or less, left up to individual interpreters. Bill Dunmire, Chief of Interpretation,
viewed environmental interpretation's greatest contribution as "the injection of a new
methodology-that of involving visitors in our interpretive events, not as mere spectators
but as participants" (qtd. in Mackintosh 1986). He was referring to "immersion
programs" being offered at various parks, including a float trip in Yosemite and a "slough
slog" at Everglades National Park, that were contributing to environmental awareness
(Mackintosh 1986). Dunmire goes on to say, "The new breed of interpreters are finding
that the more visitors will participate by using all their senses, by making their own
discoveries and by getting into the thick of any given environment, the more they will
carry away from the experience" (qtd . in Mackintosh 1986). It is unclear from this
ecotourism style of interpretation what was intended for the visitor to carry away from

52


the experience beyond just awareness, and what was actually being carri ed awa y beyond
the thrill of an adventure.

As late as 1979, Assistant Secretary of the Interior Robert L. Herbst declared EE
as an essential management function for every park (Mackintosh 1986). However, a
back-to-basics mentality, driven by financial constraints and the belief that the Service
was not up to par in its more "traditional " responsibilities, would put EE and other

"special" programs at risk [emphasis mine](Mackintosh 1986). In 1982, Director Russe
E. Dickenson approved and circulated a paper authored by the new assistant secretary o
the Interior, Vernon (Dave) Dame, that disapproved of programs that were not directl y
based on park resources or that extended too far beyond the resources of the park
(Mackintosh 1986). "These can be exciting programs, but our job is to interpret the
resources and themes of our parks, not to function as subject matter educators or as

spokespeople for special causes," Dame wrote (Mackintosh 1986). You will recall from
the opening paragraph of this chapter that fifteen years earlier Everhart, chief of

interpretation, complained that the Service was doing an inadequate job if all it was doin

was interpreting park resources. No longer was this viewed as inadequate but, rather, it
was perceived as in keeping with the mission of the Service.

The Park Service was not the only arena where a shift in environmental educatio

took place. With the election of Regan in 1980, many environmental education program
that were launched in the 1970's dwindled or died altogether as the nation 's priorities
seemed to change.
Twenty years have passed and the pendulum has swung back to the 1970 's and
environmental education is experiencing renewed support. The following section

interpretation and the reasons it is important to a draw distinction between the two.

Environmental education and environmental interpretation
Where environmental education (EE) ends and environmental interpretati on
begins is hotly debated by practitioners and academics alike (Cardea, 1999; Knapp 1997;
Rideout Civitarese, et. al 1997). It is, therefore, important to discuss what exactly EE is
and how it differs from the practice of environmental interpretation, and what
ramifications this separation holds for the parks.

What is environmental education?

The first issue of the Journal ofEnvironmental Education was published in 1969
and contained an article entitled, "The concept of environmental education," which gave
this definition: Environmental education should work to develop a citizenry that is
knowledgeable concerning the biophysical environment and its associated problems,
aware of how to help solve these problems, and motivated to work toward their solution
(Stapp et al. 1969). Amendments have been made over the years, but the essence of the
proposed goals for EE have remained unchanged.
The method to achieve the goals ofEE was outlined during the Tbilisi
Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education in 1977 in what is known as
the Tbilisi Doctrine. This was a UNESCO-sponsored conference of environmental
educators representing 66 UNESCO-member states, plus numerous NGO's and other
agencies, and is considered a landmark international gathering and doctrine (Palmer

54


1978):
• Awareness : to help social groups and individuals acquire an awareness of
and sensitivity to the total environment and its allied problems (and/or
issues) .
• Sensitivity: to help social groups and individuals gain a variety of

experiences in, and acquire a basic understanding of, the environment and

its associated problems (and/or issues).

• Attitudes: to help social groups and individuals acquire a set of values

and feelings of concern for the environment and motivation for activ ely

participating in environmental improvement and protection.

• Skills: to help social groups and individuals acquire skills for identifying

and solving environmental problems (and/or issues).

•

Participation: to provide social groups and individuals with an

opportunity to be actively involved at all levels in working toward

resolution of environmental problems (and/or issues).


The difference between EE and environmental interpretation

It seems, by definition, EE and environmental interpretation have the same goals:

to create an ecologically literate, caring and acting individual-and eventually, society.
Indeed their general goals are the same, but how they reach those goals and for whom
those goals are intended, is where EE and environmental interpretation diverge.

EE is typically divided into two sectors-formal and informal. Formal EE takes place in
the school setting, while informal EE occurs outside the schools in such places as nature
centers, zoos, aquariums and parks. A comparison of formal and informal settings is
outlined in Table 3.

s

Formal

Informal

1. Takes place in the classroom

Takes place in museums.zoos, aquaria
businesses.and the "field"

2. Learning conditions are prescribed

Learning is through free choice

3. Motivation is extrinsic

Motivation is internal

4 . The content is prescribed

Content is variable and changing

5. Content is organized and sequenced

Content is frequently not organized
or sequent ial

6. Attendance is mandatory

Attendance is Voluntary

7. Time is standardized

Each learner decides how much time
is spent

8. AI students experience all content

Many kinds of objects, displays, and
content are experienced

9. Learners are of similar ages

Learners are rJ all ages

10. Learners have similar backgrounds

Learners have diverse backgrounds

11. Commun ications and language are
generally formal and constrained

Communications and languages are
more than likely casual and diverse

Source: Adapted from Koran, Longino, and Shafer (1983)

National and global efforts in EE are usually focused on formal EE, resulting in a
predominantly curriculum-based, incremental, youth-oriented program rooted in the
school system (Cardea 1999).

However, in order to include the non-formal sector and recognize their role in EE
EE has often been described as an overarching umbrella-encompassing fields such as
outdoor education, conservation education, nature appreciation, and interpretation. This
is graphically illustrated in Figure 4.

56


Environmental
LilenlCy

Source: Cardea 1999

This representation of EE is called the subset model (Cardea 1999). Cardea

(1999) outlines two problems with this model. The first concerns the holistic approach to
education that EE advocates.

Tilden (1957) explains the importance of holistic teachin

in interpretation in his fifth principle: Interpretation should aim to present a whole rathe
than a part, and must address itself to the whole man rather than any phase. It seems
counterproductive then to compartmentalize EE to achieve its holistic goal (Cardea
1999). The subset model implies that EE is the sum of its parts, rather than there are
various fields that contribute to the work of the unique field of EE.

The second critique of the model is the end goal of each subset is not identical to
the end goal ofEE. As stated earlier, EE strives to attain an environmentally literate

citizenry. That is its final goal. While each subset plays a role it achieving environment
literacy, their individual end goals differ. For example, outdoor education/therapy is
focused on attaining self-awareness/healing in its participants. An appreciation and

purpose.
I believe this umbrella model has resulted in many programs claiming to be EE
when they are not. This frequent problem has caused the term environmental education
to be thrown around and loosely applied resulting in over-use, misuse and, ultimately,
contributing to an identity problem in the field of EE.
A possible solution to this is achieved by use of the alternative model-the
intersection set model (Figure 5) (Cardea 1999).

Figure 5: EE Intersection Model

Source: Cardea 1999

58


goals separate from that of the other fields involved in education and the environment
(Cardea 1999). The same can be said for each of the fields . This model acknowledges
the shared goals of all the fields-especially relating to EE-while maintaining the
individuality of each field. Recognizing the shared goals each has with EE, but
maintaining the status of a separate field helps to define individual goals in addition to
shared goals for each subset.
Again, according to each definition, it does appear that EE and environmental
interpretation have the same end goals. Both advocate the desire to achieve an
environmentally literate society that is capable of understanding the environmental
problems we face, accepting our role in those problems, and having the desire and
motivation to act to achieve solutions. Are the terms environmental education and

environmental interpretation then, synonymous? Not quite. The differences have to do
with the typical setting each is practiced in, and the general target audience of each.

As was shown in Table 3 on page 56, formal and informal learning settings vary a
great deal. As stated earlier, EE is typically a formal, curriculum based, youth-oriented
program geared heavily to K-12 learners. Although there are many nonformal settings in
which EE programs are offered to youth groups (such as Girl and Boy Scout troops and
through religious youth programs), the predominant professional practice of EE is aimed
at formal K-12 learners and teachers.

Environmental interpretation, however, resides entirely in the non-formal learning
domain. No assumptions can be made about prior knowledge or preparation the diverse
groups of visitors have had before they enter the park. It is uncertain how long visitors

5

motivations are for doing so. A crucial difference between formal and infonnal learning
settings is whether the audience is there by choice or not. The formal EE setting usually
has a captive audience; whereas, environmental interpretation is presented to a noncapti ve audience. In his book, Environm ental Interpretation (1997) , Sam Ham illustrates
this point with the following table:
Table 4: A Comparision of Captive and Non-captive Audiences
Captive
1. Involuntary audience
2. Time commitment is fixed
3. External rewards are important
4. Must pay attention
5. Accept formal academic approach
6. Will make effort to pay attention even if bored
7. Motivation examples
Grades
Diplomas
Certificates
Licenses
Jobs
Money
Advancement
Success
8. Typical setting
Classroom
Job training
Professional seminar
Courses required for licensing

Non-captive
Voluntary audience
Time commitment is not fixed
External rewards are not important
Do not have to pay attention
Will not accept formal academic approach
Will switch attention if bored
Motivation examples
Interest
Fun
Entertainment
Self-enrichment
Self-improvement
A better life
Passing time (nothing better to do)
Typical setting
Parks, museums, reserves, etc
Extension programs
TV
Movies
Radio
Reading
Computer

Source : Ham 1997

All these factors contribute to an experience differing from that of the fonnallearning
setting. Consequently, the needs and problems of those who practice environmental
interpretation differ from those encountered by formal EE educators.
Is this issue just a case of semantics? Some have argued it is, but many more
contend that it is important to more fully distin guish the identities and practices of both
fields. When there is confusion by those who practice environmental interpretation and

60

practices, and evaluating outcomes are compromised. The follow ing section outlines th
current objectives for envirorunental interpretation.

Current theory regarding the goals of envirorunental interpretation

An article in The Journal ofEnvironmental Education in 1973 stated, "O ne of th

major difficulties in evaluating the effectiveness of interpretation is the frequent absenc
of clearly articulated objectives" (Putney & Wagner 1973) . This remained the case for
nearly 25 years. In the late 1990's, however, a new group of theorists attem pted to
clarify and describe goals for the field of envirorunental interpretation.
In 1997, Douglas Knapp and Trudi Yolk published an article entitled, "The

identification of empirically defined goals for program development in envirorunental
interpretation." Unlike Tilden 's principles, which were the result of one man 's
experience and insight, Knapp and Trudi's work was derived from consultation with a

panel of experts in the interpretive field who analyzed the goals outlined by the authors

and validated them. The goals they developed will be my guide as I evaluate the curren
policies and practices of envirorunental interpretation in the national parks. Following
a discussion of the study by Knapp and Yolk and their findings .

Determining goals f or environmental interpretation
In order to determine the past and present identity of interpretation, Knapp and
Yolk conducted an extensive literature review that resulted in 19 documents that
contained various principles, goals, and objectives for interpretation (1997). Further

categories (Table 5).

Table 5: Categories of Interpretation Principles, Goals and Objectives
Categories of key interpretive objectives
1) Behavior change
2) Appreciation of site
3) Understanding of site
4) Awareness of site polit ics
5) Information
6) Environmental awareness
7) Enjoyment
8) Awareness of site
9) Stimulate/inspire
10) Visitor orientation
11) Fulfill management goals
12) Recreation
13) Visitor feedback
14) Environmental education
14) Miscellaneous
Total

No. of citations in literature search
22
9

8
8
8
7
7
4
4
4

3
2
2
2
11
101

Source: Knapp & Volk 1997

The importance of goals related to behavior change in the field of interpretation is
illustrated in the overwhelming majority of listings. The behavior change goals ranged
from on-site behaviors (preserving park resources) to off-site behaviors (promoting
preservation and/or conservation) (Knapp & Yolk 1997). As a framework to develop
environmental interpretation goals related to behavior change, Knapp and Yolk used the
Hungerford and Yolk (1990) model of variables involved in responsible environmental
behavior (Figure 6).

62


Figure 6: Behavior Flow Chart

I

Entry-level
v ar iables

I
I

I

I

Ownership
variables

I
I

I
I

Empowerment
variables

Majo r varia ble

Major variables

Major varia bles

Environmental sen sitivity

In-dept h kn owledg e
about iss ues

Knowledge of and
skill in using
enviro nme ntal
action strategies

Personal investment
in issues and the
environ men t

I
I

Locus of co ntrol
(expec tancy of
reinforcem ent )
Intention to act

C
I
T
I
Z
E
N

S
H
I

P
B
E
H

A
V
Mino r varia bles

Minor variab les

Minor variab Ie

I

0
Knowled ge of eco logy
Altitudes towar d
pollut ion. tec hno logy,
and econ omics

Knowledge of the
conseq uences of
behavior-bo th
positive and negative

In-depth k nowledge
about iss ues

R

A perso nal co mmi tme nt
10issue reso lution

Source: Hungerford & Volk 1990

The citizenship behavior represented in the model can be closely linked w ith behavior
chang e elicited from the interpretive field (Kn app & Yo lk 1997). This relat ion ship is
illustrated in Table 6.

Table 6: Categories of interpretive objectives related to behavior change variables
Entry-level variables

Ownership variables

Empowerment variables

Appreciation of site
Understanding of site
Awareness of site politics
Informat ion
Enjoyment
Awaren ess of site
Stimulate/ inspire
Visitor orientation

Environmental awareness

Behavior change

Source: Knapp & Volk 1997

recreation, fulfill management goals, and misc. ) could not be classified into the behavior­
change model (Knapp & Volk 1997). These five categories represent a total of 20 of the
101 key objectives analyzed (20%). Eight of the ten categories of key interpretive
directives related to entry-level variables. These eight categories represented 52 of the
key interpretive objectives (51 %). Thus, the majority of past and current objectives in
interpretation reflect basic awareness aspects (Knapp & Volk 1997). Twenty-two key
interpretive objectives contained empowerment variables (22%). The smallest
representation of interpretive directives was associated with ownership variables,
including only 7% of the total key directives (Knapp & Volk 1997). As is illustrated in
Table 6, environmental awareness was the only category of interpretive directives that
included the ownership variable. Despite the small amount of key interpretive objectives
related to this variable, the strong relationship between ownership and behavior change
deems inclusion of this variable in the framework of program development goals for
environmental interpretation (Knapp & Volk 1997).
Noticing that the majority of past and present variables in interpretation reflect
only basic awareness of information and virtually no variables relate to behavior change,
Knapp and Volk aimed to fill this gap by developing goals of environmental
interpretation that would result in visitors becoming deeply aware of and active in
environmental issues.

64


Because the goal of environmental interpretation can be considered de sire d

environmental behavior, Knapp and Yolk thought it necessary to develop a framework

goals for environmental interpretation that has similarities to the behavior change mo d

(Kn app & Yolk 1997). The synthesis of interpretive directives within the Hungerford
and Yolk (1990) environmental behavior model may ultimately cause changes in the
knowledge, attitudes, and/or behavior in a visitor to a natural resource park (Kn app &

Yolk 1997). The following are the Goals for Program Development in Environm ental
Interpretation (Knapp & Yolk 1997):

LEVEL l-Entry-level goals

Component A: This level seeks to provide visitors with sufficient resource site
information to permit them to be knowledgeable about aspects of the resource
site.

Goals at this level are formulated to provide opportunities for visitors to becom
cognitively aware of ecology/natural history of resource site, cultural history o
resource site, and other pertinent characteristics (i.e. layout of park site, visitor
amenities, etc.).

Component B: This level seeks to provide visitors with experiences that prom
an understanding/comprehension of resource site information.

Goals at this level are formulated to provide opportunities for visitors to
conceptualize the ecological relationships between the resource site and its
immediate environment, the cultural relationships between the resource site an
the immediate community, and other pertinent topics related to the resource si
(i.e. economic relationship of resource site to region) .

Component C: This level seeks to provide visitors with sufficient knowledge
permit them to become aware of the resource management policies and goals o
the resource site.

Goals at this level would offer experiences in interpretive programs that help
visitors gain information pertaining to current resource site management polic
and make visitors aware of the effect these management policies have on the
resource site.

an empathetic perspective toward the resource site.
Goals at this level would offer experiences to resource site visitors that foster an
appreciation for the resource site and enhance the enjoyment of the resource site.

LEVEL 2-0wnership goals
Component A: This level seeks to develop a cognitive awareness of how visitors
and their collective actions may influence the quality of the natural resource site.
It further seeks to develop an awareness of how these same individuals may
influence the quality of other environments.
Goals at this level would offer experiences in interpretive programs that would
conceptualize how visitor activities influence the resource site and its
environment and how environmental problems and issues can occur through these
interactions.
Component B: This level provides for the knowledge necessary to permit visitors
to investigate and evaluate natural resource site issues.
Goals at this level would offer experiences in interpretive programs that develop
the knowledge needed to identify resource site issues, the ability to analyze these
resource site issues with respect to their ecological and cultural implications, the
skills needed to investigate and evaluate resource site issues, and the ability to use
this knowledge and these skills to identify, investigate, and evaluate other
environmental issues.

LEVEL 3-Empowerment goals
This level seeks to develop skills necessary for visitors to take
positive/responsible environmental actions in regard to resource site issues.
Goals at this level would offer experiences in interpretive programs that develop
the ability to identify and evaluate solutions to resource site issues, the ability to
evaluate these solutions in regard to their cultural and environmental implications,
the ability to differentiate the types and levels of actions possible in regard to
solving resource site issues, the ability to apply these action skills to resource site
issues , the ability to use this knowledge to apply these action skills to other
environmental issues.

These goals reflect the inclusion of 80% of the past and current interpretive

directives. According to Knapp and Volk (1997), the most powerful use of their model

for program development in environmental interpretation is in offering experiences tha

represent all three levels in a sequential hierarchical order. They caution that use of the
model does not, of course, guarantee positive environmental behavior change, but

provides opportunities for stimulating this attitude or change in visitors (Knapp & Yolk
1997) . Knapp and Volk state that their end goal for the set of goals is to change behav
toward the environment-it is not their sole objective for interpretation, but a
predominant one (Knapp & Yolk 1997). Furthermore, it is an outcome that must be

guided by established learning theory and not by "personal conjecture" (Knapp & Vol
1997). Without goals, objectives, or both which are based on meaningful theory,
evaluation of the field is hindered (Knapp & Volk 1997) .

Validation ofgoals for environm ental interpretation

Knapp & Yolk ( 1997) submitted their proposed goals to a panel of experts in th
field of interpretation (see Appendix 4 for a list of experts). Representatives from the

private sector as well as government agencies that practice interpretation, including the
U.S . Forest Service and the National Park Service, were included in the panel.

A total of 18 experts were chosen to evaluate the goals using a subjective-objective

"

written format that included a yes/no response as well as space for comments (see
Appendix 5 for evaluation instrument). Each expert was asked to evaluate each goal
statement in terms of its importance as an outcome for an environmental interpretive
program, and its effect on changing resource-site visitors' environmental knowledge,

thirteen were returned completed or partially comp leted (72%) (Knapp & Yolk 1997).
Following the evaluation, Knapp and Yolk (199 7) integrated the input of the
experts into the existing goals to create the validated Goals for Program Development in
Environmental Interpretation.

The majority of experts believed that the program goals

represented important outcomes for environmental interpretive programs (Knapp & Yolk
1997). The response of each goal received a 62%-100% approval rating, and no goal
received less than a 2 to I approval majority of the respondents (Knapp & Yolk 1997).
Although there was strong support for the framework of goals developed by
Knapp and Yolk , it is important to look at the approval patterns that emerged. All of the
outcomes in Level I-Entry-Ievel goals received overwhelming support (Knapp & Yolk
1997). This is not surprising in that the goals contained in this level have historically
been the objectives of interpretation-informing visitors about topics such as ecology,
natural history, cultural history and site information, and also promoting feelings of
empathy toward the park's resources. The first three goal statements contained in Level
2-0wnership goals also received high approval ratings. These statements concentrate
on awareness of issues related to the parks ' resources and related environmental
problems. However, the remaining goals in Level 2 focus on environmental issue
investigation and evaluation and received less approval rating. The panelists who did not
give this goal a high rating felt that interpreters lack the time to investigate resource site
issues and would, therefore, be ill equipped to pass on that awareness (Knapp & Yolk
1997). The approval of the goals in Level 3-focusing on empowerment-were lower
than entry-level goals, but were consistent with the approval ratio of the issue

that action outcomes would be difficult to achieve, given the time constraints of an
interpretive program; and concern was also expressed over the political nature of
promoting action in park visitors (Knapp & Yolk 1997). The only other consistent

comments from the experts dealt with the particular interpretive medium that would be
used to achieve the goals-the type of program would influence certain outcomes, the

actual potential of the site for each outcome, and the type of participants would influen
the outcome (Knapp & Yolk 1997).

Summary

Environmental interpretation moves beyond traditional interpretation in that its

goal is to motivate the visiting public to take positive environmental action on pressing
issues outside the park boundary. Although related to the field of environmental
education, environmental interpretation typically encounters a different audience

composition and occurs in a different learning environment and, therefore, the goals fo
environmental interpretation must reflect that crucial disparity.

The objective of Knapp & Yolk (1997) was to develop a set of goals that those

the field of environmental interpretation could use in an attempt to change park visitor
behav ior. The next chapter will use Knapp and Yolk's (1997) Goals for Program
Development in Environmental Interpretation as a rubric to determine if the goals

outlined in policy by the National Park Service and the actual practice of environment
interpretation is consistent with the current theory of effective environmental
interpretation for visitor behavior change.

As discussed previously in the chapter on methods, my analysis involved the
examination of two sources of information-s-current Park Service documents that dictate
the practice of interpretation in the parks and responses to questionnaires administered by
mail to 12 Park Service professionals who work in interpretation at the park level. The
following is my analysis of both the written documentation and the actual practice of
interpretation in the National Park Service. In both situations, I was looking for evidence
of environmental interpretation as it has been described in the last chapter to see whether
or not environmental interpretation in the national parks aligned with validated goals for
effective environmental interpretation.

Analysis of current National Park Service documents
To evaluate the current priority that the NPS has given to interpretation in general,
and environmental interpretation specifically, I analyzed the current documents that
either included overall management objectives for the Service or those that list objectives
for interpretation. To gain context as I considered comments from practitioners of
interpretation in the parks, I was interested in what was being said about interpretation in
the documents that direct the actions of all those who work in the parks.
The system of documentation that dictates policy and procedure for the parks
themselves is called the Directives System and is comprised of three levels: Level 1­
Management Policies; Level 2-Director's Orders; and Level 3---eonsists of reference

manuals, handbooks and other instructional materials. For my analysis I chose the 2001
Management Policies, the most current Director's Orders pertaining to interpretation, and
70

discussion of the results I found in reviewing these doc uments.

2001 Managem ent Policies

The Managem ent Policies guide the administration of the park system and are
result of the knowledge acquired in 84 years of park stewardship by the Service (NPS

2001(b». The document is 132 pages in length and replaces the 1988 edition. Hundred

of individuals in the Service contributed in creating the policy guidelines, and the publ

and other organizations that have an interest in the parks have also had a chanc e to rev

and comment on the policies. Adherence to policy is mandatory unless otherwise state
from the secretary of the interior, the assistant secretary of the interior, or the director

the National Park Service. Robert Stanton, the director of the National Park Service in
December 2000 when Managem ent Policies was completed, stated the importance of
guidelines (NPS 2001(b»:
One thing we must all agree on is that we can best accomplish our mission
when we speak with one voice. That is how these Manag ement Policies
help us-they give us the tools to be consistent in our approach to decision
making [sic] and problem solving. ... In this new millennium, let us speak
with one voice in support of park resources and values, and work together
on the critical matters and questions that come before us.

Section 6 of Chapter 1 in Management Policies is titled "Environmental

Leadership" and begins by stating that the Park Service has an "obligation as well as a
unique opportunity to demonstrate leadership in environmental stewardship" (NPS

200l(b». It continues by saying, "Touching so many lives, the Service's managemen
the parks must awaken the potential of each individual to playa proactive role in

d

how to awaken this proactive role in visitors, but the section does include a statement
saying that environmental leadership ''will be demonstrated in all aspects of NPS
activities" (NPS 2001(ab)). For more direction in which areas of park management this
will occur, a list is provided that includes interpretation and education as one area for
demonstrating environmental leadership. Yet, even though the language is strong in
promoting environmental leadership and interpretation is linked to that end, the only
reference to other chapters in Management Policies-provided at the end of the section­
is not to Chapter 7 on interpretation, but rather to Chapter 9 on facility planning and
design. The definition of environmental leadership provided in the glossary of the
document is, "advocating on a personal and organizational level best management
practices and the principals of sustainability, and making decisions that demonstrate a
commitment to those practices and principals" (NPS 2001(b)). While park facilities can
demonstrate a commitment to the practice of sustainability through their design,
interpretation can demonstrate a verbal and structural commitment to the principals of
sustainability by providing education to the visitors. The lack of reference to the chapter
on interpretation seems to indicate that the Park Service does not view interpretation as
playing a key role in demonstrating its environmental leadership. Yet, on its
Environmental Leadership website that displays information about the "Greening of the
National Park Service," it shows a figure that includes interpretation and education in the
environmental leadership matrix (see Figure 7).

72


.r~"'JV1RON~JE_

-TAL LEADER..<;;HIP
BRIt GS IT ALL TOGETHEH.

Source : NPS 2001 (c)

Including interpretation in one place but not the other is not onl y co nfusing- and
see ming ly contradictory- but, worse, by not inc luding it in the management practices
the re are no directi ves on ho w to become env ironmental lead ers . In addition , the
inclusion of onl y one chapter to refer to for ways to adopt envi ronme ntal leadership
practices, ev en though it mandates that all Park Service acti vities sho uld include such
practices, shows a narrowness of scope and disparit y bet ween objecti ve and method.
Section 4 of Chapter 3 sho ws the same inconsistency bet ween desired outcome
and means fo r achieving that outcome. The chapter discusses land protection issues in
the na tional parks and Section 4 is titled, "Addressing Threats from External Sources."
Th e fina l paragraph of the section focu ses on damage to park resource s from sources far
beyond the park boundary-such as air and water pollution-and the correct action to
take in suc h situ ation s. The pro cedu re it mandate s is to iden tify and address these
concerns in the gen eral man agement plan of each park and other plannin g documents, so
the " result will be enhanced publi c aware nes s of the far-reaching impacts of thes e threats
and an increased likeli hood of rem edi al actions by tho se who are responsible" (N PS

To not include interpretation in a public awareness effort is, in my opinion, a severe
oversight.
Chapter 7 of Management Policies is entitled, "Interpretation and Education." It
is five pages long and the second shortest chapter-the longest is twenty pages in length.
The opening paragraph starts with the purpose of National Park Service interpretation and
includes the goal of "foster[ing] the development of a personal stewardship ethic" (NPS
200 1(b» . It is not specified whether this personal stewardship ethic is supposed to take
place both inside and outside the park boundary, or only inside the park boundary. This
is an important point because clarity of mission breeds clarity of method. It does state the
goal for interpretative programming in the Service in order to foster this stewardship
ethic: The Service's programs will do this by forging a connection between park
resources, visitors, the community, and park management (NPS 2001(b » . This, however,
leaves out a crucial factor in stewardship--the how. How can the visitors express a
stewardship ethic ? Once a connection is made between the visitor and the resource, the
visitor is not given any tools to act on the newfound ethic. This is problematic for the
parks if they want the results of stewardship, and for the visitors if they are to feel as if
they can contribute in a meaningful way.
The next paragraph in Chapter 7-Interpretation and Education states that the
"Service will maintain the organizational capability to deliver high-quality interpretive
services" through "a well-trained staff.. .and continual reevaluation" (NPS 2001(b» .
Again the desired results are mentioned but not the method to achieve those results .

74


programs: Each park's interpretive and educational program will be grounded in (1) park
resources, (2) themes related to the park's legislative history and significance, and (3)
park and Service-wide mission goals (NPS 200 I(bj). It goes on to say that in keeping
"within the context of the park 's tangible resources and the values they represent,"
interpretation "will encourage dialogue" but accept that visitors will have their own
points of view and will come to their own conclusions (NPS 2001(b» . The insistence
that interpretation speaks only of park resources implies that parks are unique entities
outside the harm of the greater ecosystem. This informs people of the curr ent
environmental issues the park may be facing and how the Service is tacking those
problems; but, by letting visitors come to their own conclusions, the larger questions of

how these issues became problems in the park and how to solve them at their source goe
unanswered . It is a passive approach to environmental problem solving, instead of an
active approach that adopts a strategy to prevent future problems.
One possible loophole in addressing the cause of controversial environmental

issues in parks comes in Section 5.5 as it states, " Acknowledging multiple points of view
does not require interpretive and educational programs to provide equal time, or to
disregard the weight of scientific or historical evidence"(NPS 2001(b». This should
allow interpreters to feel comfortable discussing issues in which scientific evidence
supports human-related causes.
Although the term environmental interpretation is never used throughout the
document, Section 5.3 specifically discusses resource issue interpretation. This section

has to do with contentious decisions of park mangers as they make choices about on-site

deal with conservation issues as a whole or the current problems the nation' s natural
resources face. Interestingly, it does include a sentence at the end of the section in favor
of public education to reduce resource threats (NPS 2001(b)) :
The education of residents and officials of gateway and neighboring
communities, the region , and the state(s) surrounding a park about
resource issues and broad initiatives is often the most effective means of
eliminating resource threats and gaining support for the Service's policy
choices.

This inclusion is inconsistent with the original statement about environmental leadership
and with the section on external threats to park resources. Although it states here that
public education is the most effective means for achieving the desired outcome of
resource protection, public education is left out entirely in the section on environmental
leadership and the section on external threats to park resources-both of which involve
resource protection. It is also interesting to note that the chapter on interpretation
contains no reference to the introduction section on environmental leadership.
As stated in Chapter 7, one goal of interpretation is to promote a stewardship ethic
towards the resource (i.e. a desire to protect the resource), yet when a specific Park
Service objective declares its end result to be resource protection, interpretation is not
included in the method for achieving that outcome. I believe this inconsistency results in
a mixed message from the administration to the practitioners as to role interpretation
should play in achieving environmental stewardship among visitors..

76


A Director's Order is not as straightforward as it sounds. A draft order is usu ally
crafted by a specific program office having particular expertise on the subject matter
included in the order, and then is distributed by the NPS Office of Policy for a 60-day
Service-wide review (NPS 2001 (d)). Comments are then sent back to the program office
in which revisions are made and, if necessary, distributed for a 14-day review (NPS
2001(d)). After the revision process is complete, the Director's Order finally reaches the
director for approval. The purpose of a Director's Order is to provide operational
policies and procedures to supplement Management Policies and can include a wide
range of topics (NPS 2001(d)).
Directors' Order #6 pertains to interpretation. I was unable to obtain this order
because, although it is apparently available within the Service, according to the website it
has not yet been completed. Its 60-day review period closed May 7, 2001, yet there is no
further update as to whether it has been approved or sent back for revision. Clearly it was
approved, but in the time that it was being reviewed, interpreters were using policy that
was over a decade old . In the absence of Director's Orders, employees are instructed to
adhere to the old system of Guidelines until the new Director's Order is issued. In the
case of interpretation, the Guideline is called "Interpretation and Visitor Services" and
was last issued in December 1986. So, while the process of transferring the old system to
the new system was to have been completed in December 2000, interpreters were relying
on guidelines that were fifteen years old. By continuing to use outdated information in
policy, the Park Service disregarded the knowledge and insights that were gained in the
field of interpretation through research efforts over the last fifteen years . Unfortunately, I

77

on environmental interpretation.

National Park System Advisory Board report, 200i
The National Park Service Advisory Board published a report in July 2001
entitled, Rethinking the National Parks for the Zl" Century. This report is in response to
a request by the director in December of 1999 to "develop a report that should focus
broadly on the purposes and prospects for the National Park System for the next 25
years " (NPS 2001(e)). The Board is a congressionally chartered body of twelve citizens
appo inted by the secretary of the interior (NPS 2001 (e)). The concept of the Board was
established in 1935 under the Historic Sites Act and its role is to provide advice on
matters relating to operations in the parks themselves, and to management in the National
Park Service (NPS 2001(e)). The report is 16 pages in length and is divided into ten
sections, including an introduction and conclusion.
The introduction of the report contains a small paragraph that, in essence, is the
driving force behind the recommendations that follow in the body of the report. It states
(NPS 2001(e)):
The public looks upon national parks as a metaphor for America itself.
But there is another image emerging here, a picture of the National Park
Service as a sleeping giant-beloved and respected, yes; but perhaps too
cautious, too resistant to change, too reluctant to engage the challenges
that must be addressed in the 21 51 century.

This statement of purpose or rather, a change in purpose, is important to note because it
opens the way for a break from the status quo. The National Park Service is rooted in
tradition, and that is not to say that all the traditions are outdated or need to change; but it

78

is saying that the Park Service needs to take a new direction in the way it operates and
prioritizes if it is to meet the needs of an evolving natio n and planet.
It goes on to say that the nation and parks are faced with human-induced

environmental degradation issues and that respected voices should be "confronting these
issues-voices that can educate and inspire . .. " and the National Park Service should be

one of these voices (NPS 2001 (e)). The first recommendation addresses the education o

the public on these issues as it states that the National Park Service should "[ e]mbrace i

mission, as educator, to become a more significant part of America's educational system
by providing formal and informal programs for students and learners of all ages inside

and outside park boundaries" (NPS 2001(e)). It continues by saying, "Education should
become a primary mission of the National Park Service. Budgets, policies, and
organizational structure should reflect this commitment" (NPS 2001 (e)). This
recommendation speaks to the current restraints of environmental interpretation in the
parks as discussed in the last chapter. Budget, policy and the structure of the Park

Service should reflect its commitment to interpretation as a means to achieve its mission
as educator and, in so doing, could address the environmental degradation issues and
their causes that the Board recommends.
The common thread of increasing the Park Service's role in public education is

weaved throughout the document. The following are excerpts that speak to the frequen
addressed goal of education by the Board (NPS 2001 (e)):

Parks can help us understand humanity'S relationship to the natural
world . . .[and] remind us that we are part of a large and infinitely complex
living system (middle of Section J: Building Pathways to Learning)

beginning point. Parks offer citizens of all ages opportunities strengthen
their connections to the environment (last sente nce in Section I).

The service should present human and environmental history as
seamlessly connected. How one shaped the other is the story of America;
they are indivisible (bullet header in Section II: Bringing America's
History Alive).

Both within and beyond park boundaries, the Service should playa larger
role in alerting the public to the conditions of our watersheds and along
our coasts (buried in the middle of Section III: Protecting Nature,
Protecting Ourselves).

Marine protected areas, like upland parks, will only be saved in the long
run by the enlightened support of the public (last paragraph in Section III).

The Park Service should think beyond the vision of maintaining
sustainable parks to encourage sustainable communities and ecosystems
with the parks as a part of them (last sentence in Section III).

By caring for the parks and conveying the park ethic, we care for
ourselves and act on behalf of the future. The larger purpose of this
mission is to build a citizenry that is committed to conserving its heritage
and its home on earth (very last sentence of the document in Conclusion).

Although these recommendations align with the goals of environmental interpretation,
interpretation is not mentioned as a suggested means to achieve these goals. The
inclusion of interpretation could have further provided the blue print the Service needs to
carry out the Board's advice.
Other suggestions by the Board that can be applied to interpretation include
promoting stewardship not only inside the park boundaries, but outside as well. To this
end, the Board suggested the Park Service work extensively with all stakeholders

80

including gateway communities, federal and state agencies, citie s, counties, tribes, the
private sector, and even other countries (NPS 200 1(e)). Including all the stakeholders

addresses the reality that parks are not islands-ecologically or politically-and the need
to continue to expand the vision of the Service's mission to include help from outside
sources. Interpretation could benefit from additional connections and support from
outside organizations and agencies.

The Board also addressed the internal support needed if the goal of a strengthened
education mission is to be realized. It stated , "Educating its workforce is crucial, and a
much larger share of organizational resources must be devoted to continuing education
and professional development" (NPS 2001(e)). The Interpretive Development Plan as
discussed in Chapter 2 has begun to fill this need for interpreters; although, one critique

of the plan is there is no mention of environmental interpretation in the training program.
Increasing training opportunities and professional development is essential in preparing
the interpretive workforce, but it is important not to sacrifice content in the face of
quantity in these offerings. Including environmental interpretation in the training
program will give trained interpreters the tools to effectively address the other
educational concerns the Board has mentioned.
It is my hope that the 2001 report by the National Parks Advisory Board will not

only prove to be an exercise in documenting problem areas, but that it will provide the
Service with the new direction it needs to seek solutions.

8

As mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, I contacted interpretation
professionals at each of the three national parks in Washington state and distributed-via
electronic mail-a questionnaire asking about the practice of environmental
interpretation at the park level (Appendix 6). Out of 12 contacts I received 8
questionnaires back, ranging from partially completed to entirely complete. All but one
employee wished to remain anonymous so I will not directly quote any of the responses,
but I will discuss the overall themes present in the responses.
All of the respondents reported that the term environmental interpretation is not
used in the National Park Service. The term interpretation is used to describe all
interpretation regardless of the setting or message. This is consistent with what I
encountered in my research ofNPS documents .
When asked what guidelines dictated the practice of interpretation in the parks,
many listed specific park plans in addition to national policies and Director's Orders.

Management Policies was listed a few times, but it was interesting to note that a listing
for the National Park System Advisory Board report, Rethinking the National Parks for

the 2151 Century, appeared only once under the question about guidelines, and appeared
only once again under a question concerning the National Parks Service 's role in
developing an environmentally literate society. It's unfortunate that this document did
not register more in the questionnaires as I feel it lays the groundwork for advancing
positive change in interpretation in the national parks.
The discrepancy about fostering stewardship but not "preaching advocacy," was
echoed with regularity throughout the responses-eorresponding to the same

82

and commented on the clear double message in promoti ng interpretation to foster
stewardship, but not to promote behavior change, influence visitor values, or advocate

a specific cause-these, apparently, are referred to by the NPS as Interpreganda. A few
comments mentioned that these were the activities for non-profits to undertake, not

government agencies funded by taxpayers. Fostering stewardship is advocating a speci

cause, is hoping for a specific behavior change, and is influencing visitor va lues. And y
all respondents agreed that environmental interpretation in the parks should promote
environmental behavior that carries beyond the park boundary.
Only one respondent felt that the NPS is falling short of the goal to change

behavior and should articulate a stronger position. I found the lack of critical comment

towards the Park Service surprising. Out of eight questionnaires, I felt that only two we

assessing interpretation in the national parks honestly-including both praise and areas
for improvement. The others seemed to be defending their role in the Park Service
mission and careful to not say anything too controversial. One respondent even
cautioned that we should not tum the National Park Service into someone 's political
pawn. I would argue it already is and has been since it's inception, and it's up to the
dedicated individuals the comprise the Park Service today to decide which type of
policies will dictate the future direction of the parks and the agency.
The following section outlines my recommendations for the future of

environmental interpretation in the national parks-drawing on the previous comments

received from interpretive practitioners in the field, along with the problem areas I feel
exist in the NPS policy documents I analyzed .

The following are my recommendations as to the steps that should be taken to
make effective environmental interpretation a more centralized thread and a priority in
the national park system:

1. Mission: The National Park Service should courageously embrace its role as
environmental leader and advocate, using interpretation to its fullest potential in this
regard.

While the National Park Service is not solely responsible for developing an
environmentally literate citizenry, they do have a unique advantage as caretakers of
some of the most spectacular natural places in the world. Interpretation in these
settings is an excellent vehicle to advocate natural resource protection and
conservation.

2. Policy Support: The National Park Service should adopt policies at the national
level that specifically include environmental interpretation as a means to achieve
environmental stewardship goals for the visiting public.

It is crucial to draft policies that stipulate how the National Park Service is to achieve
the goal of environmental steward, and that environmental interpretation will be
mandated to lead the way. Without specific direction in policy, there will be no
specific and uniform action to that end.

3. Financial Supp ort: The commitment to education as a primary role ofthe National
Park Service should be directly related to the financial priority given interpretation.

Capital investment in interpretation reinforces the commitment by the agency to the
goals of interpretation, and monetary priority should be given to interpretive staffing
needs rather than to capital projects.

84

interpreters should reflect this priority and will result in the equalization ofthe
Ranger career ladder and the Interpretation career ladder.
The professional equalization of rangers and interpreters will demonstrate the
National Park Service's commitment to interpretation, and that its practitioners are
valued for their role in the mission of the NPS .

5. Goal Clarification: Draw a distinction in policy and in training between
environmental interpretation, historical interpretation and cultural interpretation.

While similarities exist between them, the end goals of each and the means to achi ev
those goals vary and should reflect that difference to ensure exactness of purpo se.

6. Professional Development: Include environmental interpretation in interpreter
training-using the most current theory of effective environmental interpretation.
Articulating specific directives, dictated by current research, for environmental
interpreters to achieve is important for consistent practice in the field and is aligned
with the current training system of Universal Competencies.

7. Program Content: All environmental interpretation programs should convey the

connectivity ofthe natural world and humanity 's effect on the system-both inside

and outside the park boundary.


The National Park Service needs to take a more assertive role in educating the visiti
public in environmental problems that affect the park, the surrounding area, the
nation, and the world. Environmental problems know no boundaries and should be

treated as such. Environmental interpretation programming should be the vehicle to
reflect these scientific realities.

outside agencies and organizations to aid in environme ntal interpretation efforts in
the national parks.
Since the origin of the National Park Service Interpretation Division, partner agencies
and organizations have provided financial and personnel support for interpretation in
the national parks. The National Park Service should continue to foster these
relationships and seek out new ones to aid the Park Service in achieving its mission as
environmental leader and educator.

86


CONCLUDING REM ARKS

I set out to determine whether or not interpretation in the U.S. national parks was
delivering an environmental conservation message that will result in behavior change in
the average adult visitor. I first wanted to determine if the national parks were an
appropriate arena for this type of advocacy and whether or not the National Park Service
considered it as part of their central mission. In both cases the answer was a resounding
yes-historically and currently.

My next question was whether or not environmental interpretation is occurring in
the parks, and if it isn't why not. This was much more difficult to ascertain. From a
practical point of view, it would be impossible to visit each park in the system to evaluat
the programming and speak with its practitioners. I attempted this on a small scale and

still found it difficult to pin down exactly what was occurring day to day in interpretation
at specific parks, and what type of programming the average visitor would come into
contact with. Because of this difficulty I focused my efforts at the national level-what
directives in interpretation are being passed down in the form of policy and training that
dictate what is occurring day to day in the parks ? I found this to be more enlightening.

believe the National Park Service would like to embrace its role as environmental leader

and conservation advocate, but is under enormous pressure to stick with business as usua

policies and to not rock the political boat. I am afraid that this will change only at a poin
of crisis.
Our nation's parks are already experiencing the effects of environmental

degradation, both from sources inside and outside the park boundary. To what extent thi

8

stand to continue the protection of these unique places is anybody's guess . I fear the
threat to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska is just the beginning in an attempt
to reverse the protective status of places with extractive natural resource potential-and
this includes most of our parks.
I strongly believe educating the public as to the benefits of conserving the earth's
resources and the negative ramifications we will face if the consumptive practices of our
society continue is the best chance we have at saving the parks-as well as areas not
already designated for protection.
The question I'm left with is this: If committed people who are trained to
interpret natural surroundings are educating visitors in some of the most beautiful natural
areas in the world and are not receiving the financial and political support to continue
their work to protect these areas, the areas that effect them, and to instill an
environmental ethic in their visitors, what is a more effective learning environment to
create an environmentally literate society?

88


REFERENCES


Aldridge, D. (1972). Upgrading Park Interpretation and Communication with the
Public. Paper presented at the Second World Conference on National Parks
Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, WY, USA. Sir Hugh
Elliot (ed.). U.S . Library of Congress.
Beck, L. & T. Cable. (1998). Interpretation for the n" Century: Fifte en GUiding
Principles for Interpreting Nature and Culture. Champaign,IL: Sagamore
Publishing.
Bishop, N. Personal interview. 28 May 2002.
Brockman, C. F. (1977). Evolution ofNational Park Service Interpretation: A
Chronology. Seattle, W A: University of Washington, College of Forest
Resources.
(1978). Park naturalists and the evolution of the National Park
Service interpretation through WWII. Journal ofForest History, January
issue, p26.
Brown, W.E. (1971). Islands ofHope: Parks and Recreation in Environmental
Crisis. Washington, D.C.: National Recreation and Park Association, Inc.
Bryant, H. C. & W.W. Atwood, Jr. (1936). Research and Education in the National
Parks. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
Cardea, G. D. (1999). Environmental Education and Environmental Interpretation:
A Comparision, Contrast and Synthesis. Unpublished master's thesis,
Prescott College, Prescott, AZ.
Clark, W. F. (1949) . The Interpretive Programs of the National Parks : Their
Developing, Present Status, and Reception by the Public. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Dahlen, D., D. Larson, S. Weber, & R. Fudge. (1996). The process of interpretation:
Fulfilling the mission through interpretive competencies. National Association
for Interpretation Annual Conference.
Everhart, W. C. ( 1972). The National Park Service. New York: Praeger

Publishers.


(1983). The National Park Service. Boulder, CO : Westview Press.

89

Newsletter, March issue, p3 .
Gove, P.B. (ed) (1966). Webster 's Third New International Di ctionary. Springfield,
MA : G & C Merriam Co .
Ham, S. (1992). Environmental Interpretation : A Practical Guide f or People with Big
Ideas and Small Budgets. Golden, CO: North American Press.
--- --- (1997). Environmental education as a strategic communication: A paradigm for
the 21 SI century. Trends, vol. 34 issue 4, p4 .
Hungerfold, H.R. & T. L. Yolk (1990). Changing learner behavior through
environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education , vol. 21 issue 3,
p8.
Knapp, D. (1997) . Environmental education versus environmental interpretation. Legacy,
vol. 8 issue 3, p l O.
Knapp, D. (2000). The Thessaloniki Declaration: A wake-up call for EE?

Journal OfEnvironmental Education, vol. 31 issue 3, p32.

Knapp, D. & T. Yolk (1997) . The identification of empirically derived goals for
program development in environmental interpretation. Journal of
Environmental Education, vol. 28 issue 3, p24.
Koran, J., Longino, S. & L. Shafer (1983). A framework for conceptualizing research
in natural history museums and science centers. Journal ofResearch in
Science Teaching, vol. 20 issue 4, p325.
Mackintosh, B. (1986). Interpretation in the National Park Servic e: A Historical

Perspective. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of the Interior.

National Park Service (1939). Works Progress Administration publicity. Artist

Unknown. Post card replicas available in NPS visitor centers.

51

--- --- (1993). National Parks for the 21 Century : The Vail
Agenda . Yail, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior.
--- --- (1994). National Park Service Straegic Plan: Vision. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of the Interior.

--- --- ( 1996). Essential Competencies for NPS Employees. Retrieved on May 18, 2002
from www.nps.gov/training/npsonly/npsescom .htm.

90

--- --- (1999). Universal Competencies. Retrieved on April 14, 2002 from
www.nps.gov /training/univcomp.htm.
--- --- (2000) . NPS Organizational Charts. Retrieved on March 12, 2002 from
www.nps.gov/refdeskl.
--- --- (2001). NPS Park Net-FAQS. Retrieved on February 10,2002 from
www.nps.gov/pub aff/e-maillfags.htm.
--- --- (2001 (a)). NPS Park Net-Our Mission. Retrieved on February 10, 2002 from
www.nps .gov/legacy/mission.html.
--- --- (2001 (b)). 2001 Management Poli cies. Retrieved on Apri128, 2002 from
www.nps.gov/refdesklmp/index.html .

--- --- (2001 (c)). Greening of the National Park Service. Retrieved on May 7, 2002 from
www.nps.gov/renew/.
--- --- (2001 (d)). Directors Orders. Retrieved on May 8, 2002 from
www.nps.gov/refdesk/Dorders/.
--- --- (2001(e)). National Park System Advisory Board report. Reth inking the National
Century. Retrieved on May 5,2002 from
Parks for the
www .nps.gov/policy/report.htm.

rr

Negra, C. & R.E. Manning (1997). Incorporating environmental behavior, ethics,
and values into nonformal EE programs. Journal ofEnvironmental Education ,
vol. 28 issue 2, pi O.
Palmer, J. (1998). Environmental Education in the 2 1s1 Century: Theory , Practi ce,
Progress, and Promise. New York : Routledge.
Putney, A.D. & J.A. Wagner (1973). Objectives and evaluation in interpretive
planning. Journal ofEnvironmental Education, vol. 5 issue 1, p43 .
Rideout Civiterese, S., M.H. Legg, & D.M. Zuefle. (1997). More thoughts on the
differences between environmental interpretation and environmental education.
Legacy, vol. 8 issue 6, pI O.
Runte, A. (1979). Nat ional Parks : The American Experience. Lincoln, NB: The

University of Nebraska Press .

Sharpe, G.W. (1982). Int erpreting the Environment. New York : John Wiley & Sons,

Inc.


9

Publishing, Inc.

Sellars, R.W . (1997). Preserving Nature in the National Parks. London: Yale
University Press.
Stapp, W., D. Bennet, W. Bryant, 1. Fulton, 1. MacGregor, P. Nowak, J. Wan , R. Wall , &
S. Hav1ick. (1969). The concept of environmental education. Journal of
Environmental Education, vol. 1 issue 1, p30 .
The Conservation Foundation (1985). National Parks for a New Generation :
Visions. Realities. Prospects. Washington D.C. : The Conservation Foundation.
Tbi1isi Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education (1978). Toward an
Action Plan: A report on the Tbilisi Conference on Environmental Education.
Paper developed by the FlCE Subcommitte on EE . Washington, D.C : U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Thomas, T. Personal interview. 9 February 2002.
Tilden, F. (1957). Interpreting Our Heritage. Chapel Hill, NC: The University
of North Carolina Press.
--- --- (1968). The National Parks. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Publishing, Inc.
--- --- (1977). Interpreting Our Heritage, Second Edition . Chapel Hill, NC : The
University of North Carolina Press .
U.S. Department of the Interior (2001). Press Release-October 4,2001 . Retrieved from
www.nps.gov/deva/freedays.htm.
Wallin, H.E. (1965). Interpretation: A Manual and Survey on Establishing a Naturalist
Program. Management Aids Bulletin No . 22 . Arlington, VA: American Institute
of Park Executives National Recreation and Park Association.
Worster, D. (1979). Nature's Economy: The Roots ofEcology. Garden City, NY :
Anchor PresslDoubleday.

92


Absher, J.D . (1997). Introduction: Interpretation as communication. Trends, vol. 34
issue 4, p2.
Basman, C.M . (1998). The soul of interpretation. Legacy, May/June issue, p?
Christiansen, J. (1990). Visitors come to parks to enjoy themselves. Journal of
Interpretation Research, vol. 14 issue 2, p l O.
Ham , S.H. & E.E. Krumpe. (1996) . Identifying audiences and messages for nonfonnal
environmental education-A theoretical framework for interpreters. Journal
ofInterpretation Research, vol. 1 issue 1, p?
Holsman, R.H . (2001). The politics ofenvironmental education. Journal of
Environmental Education , vol. 32 issue 2, p4.
Hwang, Yeong-Hyeon; Kim, Seong-Il; & Jeng, Jiann-Min (2000). Examining the causal
relationship among selected antecedents of responsible environmental behavior.
Journal ofEnvironmental Education, vol. 31 issue 4, p 19.
Ise, J. (1961). Our National Park Policy: A Critical History. Baltimore, MD : The
John's Hopkin's Press.
Knapp, D. (1995). Moving beyond Tilden: Producing behavior change goals for
environmental interpretation. Legacy , vol.6 issue 1, p20.
(1996). Evaluating the impact of environmental interpretation: A review of
three studies. Coalition for Education in the Outdoors: Third Research
Symposiam Proceedings. Coalition for Education in the Outdoors.
Knapp, D. & E. Barrie (1998). Ecology versus issue interpretation: The analysis of two
different messages. Journal ofInterpretation Research, vol. 3 issue 1, p?

Kimmel, J.R. (1999). Ecotourism as environmental learning. Journal ofEnvironmental
Education, vol. 30 issue 2, p40.

Mach1is, G.E. (ed). (1986). Interpretive Views. Washington, D.C.: National Parks

Conservation Association.

--- --- (1989) . The devil's work in God's country: Politics and interpretation in the

1990's. Journal of Interpretation , vol. 13 issue 5, p4.

Makruski, E.D . (1978). A Conceptual Analysis ofEnvironmental Interpretation .

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH .


9

Morgan, J.M, Absher, J., Loudan, B. & D. Sutherland (1997). The relative effectiveness
of interpretive programs directed by youth and adult naturalists in a national
forest. JournaL of Interpretation Research, vol. 2 issue I,p?
Moorcroft, T.A .; Desmarais, K.H.; Hogan, K. & A.R. Berkowitz (2000). Authentic
assessment in the informal setting: How it can work for you. JournaL of
Environmental Education, vol. 31 issue 3, p20 .
Moseley, C. (2000). Teaching for environmental literacy. The CLearing House, v. 74
issue 1, p23.
National Park Service (1991). The National Parks : Shaping the System. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior.
--- --- (1996). National Park Service Strategic PLan : Final Draft. Washington, D.C. :
U.S. Department of the Interior.
Orr , D. W. (1992) . Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern
WorLd. Alban y, NY : SUNY Press.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
Pierssene, A. (1991) . Explaining Our World: An Approach to the Art ofEnvironmental
Interpretation. New York: Routledge.
Sakofs, M. (1984). Interpretive progranuning: Opportunities to promote political action.
JournaL ofEnvironmental Education, vol. 15 issue 4, pl.
Uzzell, D. & R. Ballantyne (eds) (1998). Contemporary Issues in Heritage and
Environmental Interpretation. London: The Stationary Office.
Whatley, M.E . (I 995). Interpreting Critical Natural Resource Issues in Canadian and
National Park Service Areas. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior.

u.s.

Woodhouse, J.L. & C.E . Knapp. (2000). Place-based curriculum and instruction:
Outdoor and environmental education approaches. ERIC Digest. December issue.
Yerkes, R. & K. Haras. (1997). Outdoor education and environmental responsibility.
ERIC Digest. October issue.

94


APPENDIX 1

National Park Service

I

I
Equal Opportun ity
Program

IInternational Affairs
I

Director
Deputy Directors
IAssistant Director,

I

IExtem al Aff airs

I

I
ILegislative &
[ Conqr essional Affairs

I

I

Policy

IOffice of

I ~erican Indian
Uaison Office

ICommun ications

I
I

Tourism

I

IStategic Planning

I;

I

Regional
Directors

I

l;-Ssociate Director ,
Administration

r----i 384 Parks I
~ 1 0 Support Offices

Source NPS 2000
(}5

I

I
I

Associate Director
Cultural Resouce
Stewardship &
Partnersh ips

I
Associate Director
Natural Resource
st ewardsho and
Science

I
Associate Director
Park Operations &
Education

I

I~soci at e Di

Professional

APPENDIX 2

Park Operations and Education
Associate Director

I
Concess ions

I

Harper's Ferry Center


I

Public Health Service

I

Ranger Activities


I
Risk Management

Source: NPS 2000

r-­

Operations Program Co

I-­

Administrative Ass

I


Interpretat ion

I

Park Facility Manag

I

Soundscapes Program

I


Appalachian T

I

Youth Program

APPENDIX 3


UNnED STATES

DEPAlffl(BNl' OF THE OOBRIOR

NATI(};AL PI\RK SERVICE
Wuh1nl;tQn 2 ~. c, C.

Memorandum

To:

A.ll Field Oft1cea

P'rCillI

Dinot or

~bjeotr

Securing Proteoticn and CCWlsrvation Object.ive., Through
Interpretaticn

Area Operation recommendation ifJS relating to interpr8taticm
an offendve weapon in preventing int rusion and adverl WI. or azoeu
admni s ter ed by the Service na appro~ on December 18~ 1952. on.
pres en t memorandum de.t'ines mor e .specif'ic&l11' the o b;:l eotlges or this
reoQlllllumlat.icm. it attempta to place this protect i on th_ 111 ita PJ"O~
?Srspeeti ve in relation to the interpretation ot natural aad Materia
re'l.tures, and s uggests ways i n which t his pro gra.~ cq be put into.>· .ttect.
Aft

A..

BASIS FJR :>F.1'~3EIl.VATICJl AND ?RCTECTI.11 THR'::WH

ni'i'ERP?E'l'...!!!S!!.

The in tarPreti ve progam se rves the tw bMie objec­
Uves of the Service aa de fi ned in the Act ot August is,
1916 establishing a. llat i ona l Park Service . .Thes e pur pose s
are~
To provide for the enjoyment of areU adm1n1sterecl
by the Service. and to use and cOI1aorve thelll so lUI to lea,"
them unilllPaired for the enjoyment ot tuturv gener at i ons .
The first of these objectiv.a 1s served d:l.r ec t 17 aa the
interpr etive prilgr8lll providell tor the visitor t.he background
ot 1nfornn tion necess ary for hilJ [\.11188t unders t anding,
enjoyment. and apprecl 'tion of the se areas. It ill the
st!lcond ot these basic objecti Yes - conservation a Dd pro­
tiCfiOn - that 18 the subject of this lD8l:lor an clum. The in­
terprl'ttive program hlUI a real obliest.1on and op portun1t;y,
bMad upon law and pollq, to cootribute to pre30nat.ion of
the ar9U as well a.1I to their enjoyment by t he pubUo . The
P1"OGcmt Q~o orn 1~ the 1I&mor in whioh the interprot1n
procru may IIOrve tile ConHl"V&t1Cln 3Zl.d proteot1on cb JIOUft.

9

B.

WArS IN WHICH

lIH~RE!ATI ::N

AIDS i'ARK C.:NSERV.I;.TI S!!.

1. It gives th", visitor the f act:! of n~tllI"8 and
history. the i:uportancc of i .t-arp r e t at icn of nat'lre
il(ld hl3tOry ~ as 3 r'acbcr in p rk c onserv rt .i. on i s
r;ot to be d1~ed. './hi l e the pri.r.lary ::b~cctivo ra
:!crvice to t he vi s i t or , p'1rk cons:: r v :1t i.on i a ee rved con­
c;Jrrcnt1.T. The ?rGce:!15 is very e imp Ie - YOU are :nost
interested i n and canc~rned ~bout those tnIn~~ with which
you ~re mo~t familiar and in ~hi~h you are mo~t arperi~nc~~.
The fl3.rk: visitor is no different. . Givo him sufficient under­
:!tandin:z of the reature~ and values or par-ks and monunenbe ,
and Lead him to identi f'y hi.mael f YTi th the park thr0ugh his
cnm expcr-Icncca, and he then hilS the kncmledge to understand
the ~roblems of p~rK con~ervution, ~Id a personal intere~t
that mil Lsad him to do his part b their pr-opar use -nd
c onservation. In brief, the objective is: protection
thr~lgh a p~C:3t10n, 30pr~ciation tr~ough understandIng,
and unders anding thro~nterpret3tion.

2.

It elves the visitor some g\dding principles of
rnbrpntations of fach are usu<illj

nark lll3Z1~elll.mt.

pa tta m e

Ii

previous kn 0l71 edge I or prejudices.

A forest.

eceno may suggest lumcerL.,g quite as r eadi~ liB forest
recreation. To laad the,-tsitor into an 1."ltarest in and
an ~erstandiPg of ~~ objecti.~s, ~ s co~tr3st~d with
I)th~r perhapa more f
hr patwme of think:ing :lbcut land
r~3lJUrces a nd U:!8, hit IntUit be given a background of par-k
?hllosoptw as well as :l b!!.ckground ot natur:u history'. 'L'he
origin and growth of the natio~~l p'rk idea; the principles,
policies, and objectives of national ~ .~k use; some of the
obstacles encountered in cittaining those Objoctivos; how a
park is managed; and t.he source o£ authority and resource.
for that manag<l1llBnt - all of t hes e J.I'O part of the back­
ground ot national parks and monuacnt.s that th3 visitor
!:lUSt, haw for f'uil under-e tandang , ';:nt~rpretation provides
the fa.cts
natural h~tory and history, hut 1s not com­
pI.:lte until it rohtes those f ·'lets to tho use and ccnsorva­
tion objactiva! of p . rks
mcnument.a ,

of

ar.a

3. It point s out SOdcific ways in ..mich the visitor
should partIcipate, to hia OIm gr:a.t<ir beml1'it, ill proper
park us e and consdrvation. :h~ application of ganeraI
prl~cl0Ie s to specific sItuations is no t v~sy fer ~ost
?80·~18. They 3?prOV03 of the! princiole th'it it is fin ·Oj to
h.~ve bear and d~er in their natural envirOl'U:l~lIt, but do not
sea that hmd- r \lQtU n g of the animaJ.s is a viol<l.tion of thJ.t
very prino1pl·:!. TIle 'T1sitor oft a n r~quires some specific
instruction s ragat"ding hi. own behavior. iiir:J prever.ticn,
propor r~lation9hlp or n3n and wlldl1IG, protoction of goyser

98


and cave fOrmBt1Q'ls, clunline alS o! camp, t r a il, an d road­
slde, and good and sare outdoor behavior , ve amm g the
t hlnRa that oan be tMlatad directly, using s peci fi C
ax:ample.s, in tha 1nterprativ8 pro~am . Ort1cbls of eech
arn rill need to Surwy their awn progr am an4 probllllM
to detllICline whicn matten of thi:l kind nHd to bv and can
fl~ulb1y be ;)r~ a on~d.
In Una, M in all elsQ. th.
visitor :should be givun. not an admonition, a warnin&, or
a mere :statelllOnt of rule or regulation, but :l clllar reat1Q\
ot the matter to tne facta of naturaJ. h1lltory. T.ll him 51
!! ;rou conVince· h1m of the :soundness er your relUona, he ii!l
be more likelJ" to oomply.

4. It u.ses e~l.e8 from the park and ita enTire. ill to
illustrate IissOils
na r k WIlt and oOrlservatlOJ\. FaCt. are
truthS, prinoIples are' guIdes, &it an Interpre tation is &
pattern ot thou~ht, an ~the!l13. J.:lemaatratll by' eump18
th'lt the pattern is sound. Fol101f:1ng are exaple e of
demonstrable situations.
(8) ?red.'\tor control has resulted in injury
g]llle and ranges.

to

(b) Cklce overgrazed, Yald:ms. Park has not tI1lly
recovered in 35 ye;uoa.
(e )

.~ lympi c and Ramier stand in S\arp contraat
to the deter i or at ed scenic quality or luu'!'oun d­
ing cutover area.s.

i

(d) Wilderne158 and wildliflll resourcee ot Glaci er
National Pal"k are values which must be se­
counted for in detennining co~ or dau Ql
the ~!orth Fork.
(a) Sequoia, K1nga C.-myon, and Yoser.l.ite water­
sheds a.s they exillt today are indiapeneible
to San Joaquin Valley 8ConO!llY'.
(r) Flood and lIilt from Green ·'iver adversely
affect llaDmoth Cave.

(r) l{Qtch Hetetv '!alley 1s badly needed Car
recroat1wu use today, Out h unavailAble.

(h)

Gra.sslan~ of Yesa Verde, B1g Bend, Wind
?Gtr1n~ ~orotrl arc re !lS1'GnC~

Cave, and

plot.B. invUuable in the stuctY ot the res to­
ration cr ndghoormg raneo J,and••

99

Thoall are but a fet:' of the 1l1ustrat1ons, c:lrat.n trom
perk ~cene, ea~ily ~ppreci3tcd by tho vi~itor, th~t
can bll used to drama t Lze ·:lr.d to gi V~ pur-peso to the
prine1~le8 of par-k us. dJ".r:I cOl1sgrvatiq'l.
~he

5. It identirie~ ~ajor continuing thr~~ts to p~k
integritr. In tne long run, plrk ?rotcct~on Wi Il not \5Q
accQ;Rplishad mllriily by e nlbting thct coope r at Lon of' tho
park vi~itor~ r.hile the~ ~ r e in the area~. Fire~ C3n be
controlled, meadow~ rc~torcd, f~rm.tiono gu~rded, ,~ d
ruins stabilized, and yet park values lOay- be lost through
8ncroac}mer.t from the ou t 5 i ~ e . Thd park visitor, a
citizen and part o~mer of t~e System, his th~ right to
mCT-7 th.9.t 'loot he valuell and. onjoye toCay C\Vl ~ lOlt to
him, and he h:>.s the right to knO'ii hOlf t-hi" can come ~bout.
Dams, pO'il'er devo Lopnent.s , lumboring, grazit:6' hunting,
mining encroachments and tho like are a eont1n1lin g danger
to tho -,l hol e M tional P;u'~: idea. ' lh::!re J.re alllaj"S exiBt­
jng threllts of such encr-oachnen ta, Alt~rmt<ls, involving
proper usc ot non-Ser-vi.ce Lands , usually exist. Service
offici'lb should be informed or. tOOS9 mattJrs so that the
facts may be pres~nt~d as occasions arise.
'rhe intBrprct-iva progr~J as a rule J cannot deal
with cacn threaten'3d encroachmoot 111 d'3~l, rot it 1llI
proper , and per-hape even an obliga.tion, th~t the inter­
~ret1vc pro~nm

identify in 3pproprint~ W;: ny3 current
threats. This C3n be dona m. thout :'.rgurnant, without
stating oonclusions, 'l~d ~ithout making strong r3com­
mend~tions.
If tha interpr~tiw progI''lm prepar-es the
eround by developing )T. ;.nt.:lrest and knowl.3dgo or pa.rlc
"I'alues and an a.w~enel!ls and 8.!J:Jrecl::.tion of par-k objec­
tives, i t can be MticipJ.ted that the vi3itor 'will him­
self r8"l.ct favor:3.bly to infortn3.tion on eXisting threats

of
C.

encro~chment.

PWrNING THE CllSERVATIOO AS?EC7S OF

~

nITc:..t?RE1'IVE

PR~

Some ot the a" pec t s of the pro;;,;rrun outlined hiJroin are
nOl'l' in ef'fc)ct in the i':I.~ld. There are ma;v g<\ps, holl'evcr,
and wh1t is dane is largely withOllt cocrdmat.ed diI"'Jction.
Follc:lWing .U'e 9OIIl8 :suggestions that may be helpful in
analydng and giving roreo and direction to such ':\ program
in an rea:

1. ~lrver the poasibilitisB. ~3t gGnoral principles,
,olieies, 'iild objecHV3s oost fit i~to tre locill area intor­
pret1ve thome? Vlhz.t soecific par-k use or conservation
problcllllS of local il:Jp,:.rtnnctl can be pOllltod out? Waat ~ect
lessons fi'0lll tho -'lre a esn

100


bQ

used to illuHr~tQ problam.

or

1~4

use

01"

c CIHl(;r n t l on 1

l''ha t

dancr s ot encroe.ct'mont

to th1a or obhc r SerV1co ar eaa can

J.!Qntr?!ed e on­

eurl'ontly ':ii th the local arua i nt~ rprat at 1m ?

Thos o cu .. s t Lona rill suggost t ho ~c it~ VJhich
s houl d be piazlnvd for coV'Cr~go 1n ~hc int.::rprQt1V9 pl"ogr·:llIl.
Spcc i f'Lc it~ru. falling logiellJy within t ho ~QOPO of the
aroa lnt~rpret1vv th3mY, lr~ preforaDle to an ~ttGmpt at
broad, gen c re.L, a.ll-1ncl us lve co,,~rsg(l.
2. ?lan tho ~tnod of tr~a.bnont . JUllt a~ a balanood
1nt.3r?rJ b.t:!.on of n:lw:J.l ;;lld hiunan his t ory is pl:mnoQ,
.,l!Ll :U1;0 hor. , r.hen , 311<1 VlhUI"8 each pMllO of the conaervu­
tion thome d,J1'in 2d :'LbO'M \7111 00 handled. :;h1ch i kllle c an
co nrosontl:ld 3.5 a ?'lrt of th~ existing talk or gui ded trip
J)rogr3lll? va ~Y' of the it.;ms sugge5t ;,lxh1bit tr~atment?
Do eXisting ~ xhi bit hbJ13 identify the facts of conllle rva.­
tion~ 00 th~ arJa pUblications tre~t of tho protQction
or conll~n"ticn of t im silccif1c subject discussed? The
anmycre to th0se questions ~ll sug~e8t tho place of each
ccnao r-vatLon i tAm in t.ho ar-ea interpretive program.

). Assign responsibility. Tia tha cCI'ls.:lr'T3tiOn itema
to S?dcific ;,cuvtt.y-:i"SSr'gmJ.mts. A talk on wildlii'e, for
oxamp'lc , is -:1 logic:'.l place to i> XPls.in wlldliftJ pollcy•
.:Ja!<::: t hi s phase of co cser-vat.Lon , than, a datinite p:u-t of
a vril1life Lcc tu r e :'..Ssignm..:nt. or of a bird \·: 31k. Tharo
is 000 v'"ry i mportan t factor to c onedder in r.:n.ldllg such
<,.s s i gnmont s . 'ro:-e thY! In any other pnase at p1anninC,
thu vanLed c'l?a.bllitids of the intcrprzt~rs llIust be cm­
sidcr3d. ~-:ost men can r91'lte park history ~ davclopm<mt,
most can outlina gon9r~ p~k objectivas. ,~ cqn make
s ~ (;cific ."-..:n tion of loc'll protoction and p:lrk US3 problClllls.
Gr~at~r eX~JriencQ and ba.c~~ound is required to orfQct1ve~
int~rpret tho locu land US<2 and conser-vat.Lon cas e hinories,
but tho gro1.tast care must rAil exarcf.aed in 1.\3Jdng ~8ignmont l
in ~;hich tru::ro is a 'Oossibility of t:I.1Binterprot:1tion of
Stll'vice policy, praotico, or intent, or of attitudes9.nd
Nl !tionahi9s \lith industr'l or oth~r agcnCidS. CO!llparstivaly
f.;}w s.oi:l.sm'llly <!lJD1oy.:::d intcrpl'ct(;rs may 1:::: JUdg,,'<1 aaff1­
ciontly ",xpc.rienced an d grounded in p,'U"k ?Olley, and or
IlUl· !1oi\.lnt ~ld.ll a.mi ta.ct to venture into this brooder
fi·;;:ld. Bu fully iI'fl:lre of thu ca;:>abilit1JB ot each in­
t~rpr..;tor. ::nd nev:~r exceed their limitations in your
a5signm~ntB or ~y.p~ct~tlons.

101


1.

,.tn'·ll

Ih:J :!.llt~roratilfe pr0lE:::..-un dor.Is in t.he f'lcts of

'Ina hu-nan

hisiorf----rrhQ

p '.. rk S C ~n Q ·!Sitnrt J

in t~ r~rotJ.tion orth~­

!ls1c job.

I nw Z"!>rct t he n:l.tur!'l

or hi:storic Ilecnc, tnt give th;;,.t i~tcrpratlltion. ~ con­
~L~n'1tion Lnp.l lc at Lcn ,
, ~ 1. lce the f ,J,cts of nature and
hi~tory tcl~ tl~ coneo~t1on ~tory, but keep the cor.s~rva­
t~on thG~a in ~~l~c~ with the intarprot3tton of nat~~
and

hu~cn hi~tory.

2.

(;or:s , 'C"f' t1.on i!1t.lrnrot:1tioll ir.·Ji tllS l08:1caJ.

r;';"".8OTling.

or-Irnrt.o

!~o not.

iClctl.l1'Q-;-'lrg!l~-;-'3aitoriiiliza,
do not oV~rdrl'\lM.t1zG. C~ulll
of hcta a r.d principlas, preaonted

pI'noh,

c()r"r1~~c, ~,~d

and simol...

3t1.t.;:l'~nt

n:l.t : ~r.'t.11:r)

':: l.c~p 1y ,

"'nd pOSJ.tlv;;ly, i:; effective, but a

Labrrred ..: i .fc::-·" to convmce '-,i ll dl::f<.:at the purposo ,
A'fOid P':'l'so:;~tl O;iniOl', tr.1t make the f:J.Cts of natural
history uoint to t.h~ir oun conclusion.

3.
s~cific.

Cons'Jl'v,tion L1t;:r,?rct~~tion is brief 'lnd

3wldct n few points, ~ f~u examples, nnd
stress th~so, ~r.d lJt th~ antira conservation treatmont
occupy b'lt ~ill .excceddng'Iy ~311 put of any present.a­
t:;'on. A i'~;': pUnr.od words :'.t tho:: right tiBIa aro
sufficL:nt.
4.

Cons

~rvation

ir.t.Jn:rdbtion is fair.

Avoid

criticiSl'l3 of industry or 01' o'tn~r :1.g~mcies, and do not
nur~oscl:.. d1s~·,~g~rd f~ts th.1.t m:,y not be f~vor!lb1o.
D~9,

?ovcr

~~.clopmonts, irrig~tion syst~9, lum~r,

ill rcopir~d by modern c1vili­
such dcvdopr!lCnt and use is
!l')C~SS:uj", '1:'1d tInt ot.he.r '3.g·~nci~s function quite
ol'opJrly in tha fields of such use and dave Lcpnent ,
At th~ B~~ time omph~siza th ~t the n~tion31 p~rK8 ~
ITI.on'.ll':nn t8 ·1.1"13 not tho proper pl:IC~s for th",.t t ype of l'1Cld
usc , Lw:1bnring, pO':"-3r d~volopmonts, mining, gr:uing,
and tho like ~N foreign to tho entire use concept of
n~tion31 ?~rkB ~nd ~onument8, ~~d ~ acti-rities ~hich
h~vo the power to complet3~ nulli~ rocr~ation~l ~d
gr'lss~e
~cogniz... trot

""in-::r'lls, 1.r1d

Z'ltion.

il1~ir,,,,tion3.1 -.ralu~s

102


of t.hcse ar-eas ,

~. rh o c an se r v~ti on 1nt o rp re t~ tion ob ~ c ti ve i~
ei.rnple ono .
hJ.t 0 jcc 1 ve e :
or
a pe r-s cnlil knawl arig.a of par-k and monumt;nt v~lues 1 such
c1.

an '~ Pfl re c i 't1on of P U'i< prlr:d.;Jle:J end objGct1ws I and
such an ;t.Y1!.re n i~~! of his O'l'al r -::s'pon:!ibility, that he
m,~ t~ka intelligent action, ~hethGr it conc~rns his
lr:h~vior in the parks, or whathcr it involvas
other ac td.on <J.ft~r hd lV:\·J'09. [ '1.317 c i.td.scn InU"t
formulate hi.3 OY«l conclusions on conservation matt er s ,
but he 13 e nt i tl~ d to know th ~ !~Ct8, princ iplu~, and
Sp'lcii'ic 3itu1.tioM 'I.f1'octing corrscr-vat.Lon ae they
m'11 eo obBarvc:d and int~rpretcd 1n a national. par-k or
monument,

awn

Dir~ctor

1041

Source: Mackintosh 1986.

103

APPENDIX 4


Validation Panel
Mr. David Cherem-Interpretive Consultant
Mr. David Dahlen-Interpreter for Harpers Ferry National Historical Park
Mr. Tom Danton-Interpreter for Saguaro National Monument
Dr. Michael Gross-Professor in the College of Natural Resources at the University of
Wisconsin at Steven's Point
Mr. Nell Hagadom-Chief of Interpretation for the U.S. Forest Service
Dr. Sam Ham-Professor in the College of Forestry at the University of Idaho
Mr. John Hanna-Interpreter for Inside/Outside Consulting Firm
Dr. Doug Knudson-Professor in the College of Natural Resources at Purdue University
Mr. Bill Laitner-Interpreter for Everglades National Park
Ms. Julie Marcy-Interpretive Specialist for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Dr. Gary Mullins-Professor in the College of Natural Resources at the Ohio State
University
Dr. Gail VanderStoep-Professor in the Department of Parks and Recreation at Michigan
State University
Mr. Chris White-Coordinator of Interpretative Services for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers

Source: Knapp & Volk 1997

104

APPEND IX 5

Goals

Evaluation Instrument .
Evaluation

Do you agree. as an expert. that
this goal represents an important
outcome for an .znr1ro.a-eat:&1
interpretive program?
Entry-Level Goals

1. Component A: This level s eeks to provide the visitor
with sufficient resource site information to permit
him/her to be knowledgeable about a s pects of the resource site .
Yes-No -­
Comments:
2 . Goals at this level are formulated to provide opportunities fo r
visitors to become cognitvely aware of:

a . Ecology/natural history of resource site.
Yes-Comments:
b. Cultural history of site.
Yes -COll'I1\ents:

No-­
No -..., .

c. Ot he r pert i n e n t site characteristics, e.g.,
management stra t egies, demogra ph i c s .
Yes --

N:o

CPlIIllents:
3. Component B: This level seeks to provide the visitor
with experiences that promote an understanding/
comprehension of the meaning of resource site
information .
Yes- ­
No-­
Comments:

10

4 . Goals at this level are formulated t o provide opportunit i e s for
visitors to conceptalize:
a. The ecological relationships between the resource
site and the immediate community .
Yes -No -­
Comments:
b. The cultural relationships between the resource

site and the immediate community .
Yes -Comments:

No-­

c. Other pertinent topics related to the resource
site. e.g., economlc relationship of resource sita
to region.
Yea -­
No-­
Comments :
5. Component C : This level seeks to provide the visitor
with sufficient knowledge to permit him/her to
become aware of the policies and qoals of the
resource site.
Yes -No- ­
Comments:

6.Goals at this level would offer experiences in interpretive
programs that:
a. Help visitors gain information pertaining to
current resource site management policies .
No-­
Yea
Comments:

b. Make visitors aware of the effect these
on the resource site.
Yes -Comments:

~gement

policies have

No -­

7. Component 0: This level seeks to provide the visitor
with experiences that promote an empa~hetic perspective toward the
resource aite .
No -­
Yes
Comments:

B.Goals at this level would offer experiences to
resource site visitors that :
a. Pos t er an appreciation for the resource site.

Yes--

No

Comments:
b. Enhance enj oyment of the resource site .


Yes-­
Co~nts:

Level 2--awnership Goals
9. Component A: This level seeks to develop a

coqnitive 4Wareness of how visitors and their


106

No -­

natural resource s ite . It furthe r seeks t o deve l op a n
awareness of how these s ame ind i v i dua l s may
i n f l uenc e the qua l ity of other env i r onme nts .
Yes-No-COlmle n ts:
10. Goals at this level would offer experiences i n

interpretive programs that would conceptual ize :
a. How visitor activities influence the resource

site and its environment.
Yes-COJI1Illents:
b. How ~ t & . 1 problems and issues can
occur through these interactions.
Yes -Comments:

No-­

No -­

11. Component B: This level provides for the
knowlegde necessary to permit visitors to investigate
and evaluate natural resource site issues ,
Yes-No-Couments:
12. Goals at this level would offer experiences in

interpretive proqrams that develop :
a . The knowledge needed to identify resource
site issues.
Yes
Comments :

No-­

b. The ability to analyze these resource site i s sue s
with respect to their ecological and cultural
~lications.

Yes-COIIIlleIltS:

No--

c. The skills needed to investigate-and evaluate
resource issues.
Yes -No-Couments:
d . The ability to use this knowledge and these skills
to identify, investigate, and evaluate other
~t:&.1 issues .
Yes-No-CCIIIlIents:
Level 3--Empowennent Goals
13. This level seeks to develop skills necessary for
visitors to take positive/responsible eD~t&.1
actions in regard to resource site issues.
Yes-No-Cormnents :
1~ .

Goal. at this level would offer experiences in

107

interpretive programs that develop :
a. The ability to identify and evaluate solutions
for resource site issues.
Yes -No-Couments:

b. The ability to evaluate these solutions in regard to
their cultural and azanroamaat4Ll implications.
Yea -Comments:

No -­

c. The ability to differentiate the types and levels of
actions possible in regard to solving resource
site issues.
Yes
No
COII'IIIeD t S :

d. The ability to apply these action skills to
resource site issues.
Yes-No-­
Comments:
e. The ability to use this knowledge to apply these
action skills to other ~ t~ issues .
Yes-No-COlmIents:
Goals

Evaluation

Do you believe. as an expert, that this qoal is Lmportant in
effecting knowledge, attitude , and/or behavior Entry-Level Goals
change in a resource site Visitor?

1. Component A: This l eve l seeks to prOVide the visitor
with sufficient resource site information to permit
him/her to be knowl edge able about aspects of the
resource site.
Yes -No-COImIents:
2. Goals at this level are formulated to provide
opportunities for visitors to become cognitvely aware of:

a. Ecoloqy/natural history of resource site.
Yes -Coument.,:

No--

b. Cultural history of site.

Yes --

No --

COlIIllent.:
c. Other pertinent eite characteristics, e.g.,
management strategies, demographics.
Yes-~

No

Ccmmenta:
3. Component B: This level seeks to provide the visitor
with exper i ences that promote an understandinq/
comprehension of the meaning of resource site information.

108


Yes -­
Comment.s :

No-­

4 . Goals at this level are formu l ated to pr ov i de
opportunities for visitors to conceptali ze:
a. The ecological relationships between the resource
site and the immediate community .
No -Yes -Cormnents:
b . The cultural relationships between the resource

site and the immediate community.
Yes -Coumenta:

No - -

c . Other pertinent topics related to the resource
aite, e.g., economic relationship of resource aite
to region .
Yes -­
No -­
COl'lIIIlents:
5. Component C: This level seeks to provide the visit or
with sufficient knowledge to permit him/her to
become awa r e of the policies and goals of the
resource aite .
Yes -No-Comnents:

6 .Goals at this level would offer experiences in
interpretive programs that:
a. Help visitors gain information pertaining to

current resource site management policies.
Yes
COII'IIlents:

No

b. Make visitors aware of the effect these ·
management policies have on the resource site.
Yes -No
Coument.:

7. Component D: This level seeks to provide the visitor
with experiences that promote an empathic
perspective toward the resource site.
Yes-No -­
Comments:
a.Goals at this level would offer experiences to

resource site visitors that:

a. Foster an appreciation for the resource site .


-CClIIIDents:


Y~

b . EnhAnce enjoyment of the resource site .

Yes-­
Comznents :


. ~


No --


Level 2--Ownership Goals

10

9. Component A: This level seeks t o develop a
c ogni t i v e awareness of how visitors and their
col lective ac t ions may i n f lue nc e the qu a li t y of the
natural resource site. It fur ther seeks to develop an
awareness of how these same individuals may
influence the quality of o ther environments .
No-Yes -Coaunents :
10 . Goals at this level would offer experiences in

i n t e rp r e ti ve programs that would conceptualize:
a. How visitor activities influence the resource
site and i t a environment.
Yes - ­
No-COlIIIllE!nts :
b . How aav1rea-aatal problems and issues can
o ccur throuqh these i n t e r a c t i on s .
Yes-­
No­ Comments :
11 . Component B: This level provides for t he knowlegde
necessary t o permit visitors to i nv e s t i ga t e
and evaluate natural resource site issues .
No-- .
Yes -Conments :

12 . Goals at this level would offer experiences in
interpretive programs that develop :

a . The knowledqe needed to i de n t i fy resource
site issues.
Yes-Couments:

No --

b . The ability to analyze these resource s ite issues
with respect to their ecological and cultural
illlPlications .
Yes-No- COll'llleIlts :

c . The skills needed to investigate and evaluate
resource issues.
Yes-No-Cotrments:

d. The ability to use this knowledqe and these ski lls
to ident ify, i nv e s t i g a t e, and evaluate other
~ ~ i s su e s .

Yes-COJnneI1ts:

No - - .

Level 3- -Empowerment Goals
13 . This lavel seek8 to develop skills necessary for
v isitors to take posit ive/respons ible eDYi~ea~
actions in rega r d to resource site i s s ues .
Yes--
No-­

11 0


Comments:
14. Goals at this level would offer experiences in
interpretive programs that develop;
a. The ability to identify and evaluate solut."ions
for resource site issues.
Yes-No-­
COIl'IlIe.Ots:
b. The ability to evaluate these solutions in regard to
their cultural and eDYi~t.l implication'll.
Yes-No-­
Comments:
c. The ability to differentiate the types and levels o f
actions possible in regard to solving resource sit.e i ssue s .
Yes-No-­
Connent.s:
d. The ability to apply these action skills to
resource site issues.
YBB--

No

COIIUlents;
B. The ability to use this knowledge to apply these
action skills to other ~ t . l issues.
Yes-No-­
Comments:

Source: Knapp & Yolk 1997

111

Media

McClelland_SJMESThesis2002.pdf