Orientation, information, and interpretation provided during informal
visitor contacts at Glacier Park.
Patrick Hair
Student Conservation Association Intern
Frontline Interpretive Park Ranger
Glacier National Park
August 25, 2007
Abstract
While working at Glacier National Park, typical opportunities for informal interpretive
contacts to occur were while staffing visitor centers or engaged in roving activities. An
evaluation of where, how, and how frequently I made informal interpretive contacts is
analyzed. Quantitative data showing the amounts and locations in which I provided
orientation, information, or interpretation was collected and qualitative logs were made
describing detailed examples of visitor contacts. A strong relationship between the
number of contacts made/hour and the frequency of informal interpretation opportunities
I engaged in is evident, suggesting that my ability to move from orientation and
information to interpretation is heavily influenced by the amount of time I can spend with
an individual visitor group.
Introduction
As a Park Guide and Park Ranger at Voyageurs National Park in 2005 and 2006, I was
evaluated by a supervisor at the end of each of my seasonal terms. My reviews were
overall good, but each season, I was told to work on finding ways and opportunities to
interpret from the visitor center desk (informal interpretation).
With this in mind, the purpose of my research is to find out if and how setting,
location, and frequency of contacts affect whether, during a visitor contact, I provide
visitors with orientation and information, or if I am able to move the contact to
interpretation.
I believe if I have a better idea of where and how I engage in informal interpretation, I
will have a better idea of how I can work, when appropriate, interpretation into other
areas or locations in the future.
Literature Review
An understanding of interpretation is necessary in order to delineate the nature of my
contacts with visitors. Defining interpretation is a task with which many have struggled.
With his 1957 work, Interpreting Our Heritage, which detailed “seven principles of
interpretation,” Freeman Tilden has become one of the foremost authorities on
interpretation. For even Tilden, however, there is no cut and dry definition of
interpretation.
“I’ve been working with the concepts of interpretation for about 25 years, and still
don’t know what it is, though I’ve got some ideas, and I’ve written a lot of
definitions. But I was never completely satisfied with them.” -Tilden, adapted
from Walter Dabney, 1988, Travels with Freeman (Beck, 1998).
While some find that all interpretation involves information, some have taken a stab at
distinguishing interpretation from information.
“Interpretation differs from information in many basic respects. ‘Interpretation,’
by contrast with information, conveys the meaning of something, through
exposition or explanation. ‘Information,’ is the knowledge derived from study,
experience, or instruction” (Grater, 1976).
For the purpose of meeting visitors’ needs, organizations and agencies have come up with
their own definitions of what interpretation should look like.
“Interpretation is a communication process that forges emotional and intellectual
connections between the interests of the audience and the inherent meanings in
the resource.” – National Association for Interpretation, Definition of
Interpretation (Larsen, 2003).
Many authors have put forth their ideas about interpretation and informal interpretation
from William Lewis’, Interpreting for Park Visitors, 1995, to G. W. Sharpe’s,
Interpreting the Environment, 1976. Working for the National Park Service, however, it
was my attempt to use their definition of interpretation to guide my informal contact
study.
“The interpretive presentation is successful as a catalyst in creating an opportunity
for the audience to form their own intellectual and emotional connections with the
meanings/significance inherent in the resource.” - National Park Service
Interpretive Development Program, Stem Statement One, Core Interpretive
Rubric (Larsen).
Furthermore, I used Glacier Park’s standard operating procedures to guide my definition
of an informal interpretation contact.
“Informal interpretation can occur in a variety of settings. Most commonly,
informal interpretive opportunities happen at visitor center desks, while roving a
trail or overlook, or even in the parking lot. Successful informal interpretation is
defined as knowing when, why, and how to provide basic and/or in depth
information; and when, why, and how to provide opportunities for the audience to
form their own intellectual and/or emotional connections with the meanings and
significance inherent in the park’s resources.” (Glacier National Park, Division
of Interpretation and Education, General Operating Procedures, 2007).
With these working definitions in mind, I was better able to apply the methods that
follow in completing the study.
Methods
As a means of understanding and evaluating my ability to engage with visitors in
interpretation during informal times, such as staffing visitor centers and roving, I
collected data from my shifts at the Apgar and Logan Pass Visitor Centers, and roving
contacts at the Fish Creek Campground and the Hidden Lake Trail.
Over the course of 6 work days I collected data on the number of visitors I provided
with orientation, information, or interpretation. I counted a visitor group (ie: a family) as
one contact instead of each individual visitor as a contact since each interaction only
occurred once. I used tally forms (appendix i) to help keep track of the type of contact
provided throughout the day. Categories included: Orientation, Information,
Interpretation, or Other. If a contact included orientation and information, it was
counted as Information. If a contact included any interpretation, in addition to
information and/or orientation, it was counted as Interpretation. Examples of contacts
that would qualify as Other include: requests for comment forms, bear sighting reports,
thanks for trail recommendations, “where you from?” small-talk, etc. A Comments
section was also included for any additional notes. When interpretive contacts were
made, I recorded the main topic that initiated the move to interpretation in this section.
For other, non-interpretive contacts, I made a summation of what the majority of topics
were during that contact period in the comments section.
A qualitative analysis was completed as well. The National Park Service (NPS) has a
number of competency benchmarks as part of their Interpretive Development Program
(IDP). One of these benchmarks deals with informal interpretive contacts (see “Informal
Contacts” section). I completed, for submission, the NPS’s IDP module for informal
interpretive contacts (see “Informal Contacts” section), and will use these logs as
qualitative examples of some of my contacts.
Results
The overall results of the quantitative data found that I made the most visitor contacts,
proportional to duration of time, at Logan Pass Visitor Center and roving Fish Creek
Campground (see appendices ii-v for raw data and vi for averages). At Logan Pass
Visitor Center I made only a few more contacts than at the Fish Creek Campground. The
data shows, however, that the types of contacts were very different. Roving the Fish
Creek Campground, I made primarily information contacts. While at Logan Pass I
provided the highest level of orientation. At each of the sites, the majority of my contacts
were informational. Information contacts were highest at Fish Creek Campground.
The location that provided the most interpretation contacts was the Hidden Lake Trail
roving site. Common topics were fish, mountain goats, glaciers, climate change, alpine
habitat, and bears.
The data shows that as the number of contacts/hour increase, the percentage of
interpretation contacts decreases (see table below).
Contact Type/Total Contact (Percentages)
Location
Orientation Information Interpretation
Fish Creek
Campground
Hidden Lake
Trail
Logan Pass
Visitor Center
Apgar Visitor
Center
Totals
(Average %)
Other
0
88.3%
11.7%
0
Total
Contacts
19.6
17.3%
65.3%
17.3%
0
7.5
34%
50.7%
9%
6.3%
22.1
17.3%
64.2%
11.9%
6.5%
16.8
17.2%
67.1%
12.5%
3.2%
66
Common interpretive topics for Logan Pass were glaciers, alpine habitat, bears, and
climate change. Topics for the Apgar Visitor Center were loons, fish, glaciers, fire, and
climate change. Additionally, at both of the visitor centers, one of the most significant
initiators of interpretation was the Jr. Ranger program. At Apgar, “Map Talks” were
another initiator for interpretation. Interpretive topics for roving sites were typically
based on observations that could be made of the resources at hand.
The informal contact logs that were prepared for IDP submission, will be reviewed by
accredited NPS auditors. The results of their review will be submitted upon their
completion. I had Ranger/auditor review my logs before submission. She found the
contacts to be up to NPS standards. The overall analysis that I can derive from these logs
is that I am able to move to interpretation more easily when the visitor’s time is not an
issue or constraint.
Discussion
I was not too surprised by the results of the quantitative data. While working the visitor
centers and roving various sites throughout the summer, I have come to a general
understanding of the sorts of questions and interactions I can expect with visitors.
Overall it seems that the fewer visitors I interact with in a given time, the more
opportunities to move to interpretation exist.
When I was in the resource, roving Hidden Lake Trail, my interpretive contacts were at
their highest. I would walk the trail and pass visitors as I went, answering questions,
pointing out resources at hand, and overall, empathizing with the visitors’ experiences as
they enjoyed the sights and scenes.
This roving time was different from roving Fish Creek Campground in that, at Fish
Creek, I was approaching the visitors at the campground at their campsites,
promoting/telling them about an evening program. This occurred near dinner time, which
made it awkward to attempt to make conversation with visitors when they were obviously
busy.
Some of the results I feel are based more upon the management of the park and less on
my ability to interpret. One big example that is evident in the results is the high amount
of orientation contacts at the Logan Pass Visitor Center. I feel that opportunities for
informal interpretation are reduced based on poor signage. The number one question at
the visitor center desk is, “How do I get to the Hidden Lake Trail?” The time I spend
explaining where the Hidden Lake Trail begins could be reduced dramatically with better
signage and that time then could be freed-up for opportunities to interpret. Similarly, the
new Transit Center at the park proved hard to find for visitors and a great amount of time
was spent giving directions to its parking lot.
Other results, I feel, are based more upon how visitors use the park than on my ability
to interpret. At the Apgar Visitor Center, I was often the first person visitors ever talked
to about the park. Many arrive knowing nothing more of Glacier Park than how to arrive
at Glacier Park. The lack of preparedness of visitors who stop by the Apgar Visitor
Center may contribute to high levels of information and orientation being provided with
lower levels of interpretation. Around half of the visitors who stop by the visitor center
are looking to find out what to do while they are in the park. Questions like, “I’m in the
park for 3 days, what should I do?” are not uncommon. Though a multitude of free
literature and resources on things to do while in the park is available, visitors prefer
showing up to the park and finding out when they get here what to do. This puts the
interpreter in the position of trip planner and travel agent and interpretation is harder to
reach.
Other influences on the amount and type of contact were influenced by situational
events within the park. The Going-to-the-Sun-Road opened late this summer on account
of a washed out portion of road in an alpine section. Many contacts earlier in the summer
involved informing visitors who planned on driving the road, how to visit the park
without being able to cross the Continental Divide via the road. In mid to late summer,
the Northwest region of Montana was the priority one region for wildfires in the country.
Though less than 10 acres burned in the park, road closures outside the park and
smokiness in the park changed the types of contacts made with visitors. Fire became a
big concern and a hot topic for information and sometimes interpretation as well.
Through the interpretive logs completed, I was able to better pinpoint how
interpretation occurs. The examples I used for the logs were taken from a number of
interpretation contacts. The majority of the topics that are covered in these logs are
topics that I have a greater extent of knowledge in. For example, loons are not typically a
common topic for visitors at Glacier Park, they were, however, at Voyageurs National
Park, a park where I once worked. Additionally, topics in which I give formal
interpretive programs (fire, melting glaciers, etc), seem to be easier to interpret than those
I do not – it is a lot like giving a mini, spontaneous program.
Overall, from the data I collected and logs I completed, I have found that as an
interpreter, I am more equipped to interpret when I am in the resource, when I am
knowledgeable about the resources being discussed, if I have interpreted the resource in
formal settings in the past, and, especially, if there is plenty of time available for contacts
to move to interpretation.
References
Beck, L. & Cable, T. (1998). Interpretation for the 21st century. Sagamore Publishing,
Champaign, IL. Page 9.
Grater, R. K. (1976). The interpreter’s handbook. Southwest Parks and Monuments
Association. Pages 5-6.
Larsen, D. L. (2003). Meaningful interpretation: How to connect hearts and minds to
places, objects, and other resources. Eastern National. Page 47.
Lewis, W. J. (1995). Interpreting for park visitors. Eastern Acorn Press. Conshocken,
PA. Pages 58-65.
Sharpe, G. W. (1976). Interpreting the environment. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New
York. Pages 3-7 and 123-140.
Tilden, F. (1957). Interpreting our heritage. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. Pages 3-10.
Appendix ii
Fish Creek Campground Roving Contacts
Fish Creek Campground (Rove) Date: 7-25-07 Duration: 1 hour
Contact
Total
Comments
Orientation
0
Information
16
Evening Program Information
Interpretation 1
Owls
Other
0
Fish Creek Campground (Rove) Date: 8-03-07 Duration: 1 hour
Contact
Total
Comments
Orientation
0
Information
19
Evening Program Information
Interpretation 2
River Otters, Loons
Other
0
Fish Creek Campground (Rove) Date: 8-11-07 Duration: 1 hour
Contact
Total
Comments
Orientation
0
Information
17
Evening Program Information
Interpretation 3
Fire, Red Foxes, Deer
Other
0
Appendix iii
Hidden Lake Nature Trail Roving Contacts
Hidden Lake Trail (Rove) Date: 7-30-07 Duration: 1.5 hours
Contact
Total
Comments
Orientation
3
Trail Location
Information
6
Wildlife/Plant ID
Interpretation 1
Climate Change/Glaciers
Other
0
Hidden Lake Trail (Rove) Date: 8-05-07 Duration: 1.5 hours
Contact
Total
Comments
Orientation
2
Trail Location
Information
9
Wildlife/Plant ID
Interpretation 2
Fire, Climate Change/Glaciers
Other
0
Hidden Lake Trail (Rove) Date: 8-12-07 Duration: 1.5 hours
Contact
Total
Comments
Orientation
1
Trail Location
Information
7
Wildlife, Fire
Interpretation 3
Fish, Climate Change/Alpine Habitat
Other
0
Appendix iv
Logan Pass Visitor Center Contacts
Logan Pass Visitor Center Date: 7-30-07 Duration: 2 hours
Contact
Total
Comments
Orientation
8
Trail Locations, Bathrooms, Food
Information
18
Trails, Fire
Interpretation 2
Fire, Climate Change/Glaciers
Other
5
Bear Reports, Climbing Check-in
Logan Pass Visitor Center Date: 8-05-07 Duration: 2 hours
Contact
Total
Comments
Orientation
16
Trail Locations, Bathrooms, Water
Information
27
Trails, Fire
Interpretation 5
Jr. Rangers, Climate Change
Other
2
Bear Reports
Logan Pass Visitor Center Date: 8-12-07 Duration: 2 hours
Contact
Total
Comments
Orientation
21
Trail Locations, Bathrooms
Information
22
Trails, Fire
Interpretation 5
Fire, Jr. Rangers
Other
1
Bear Report
Appendix v
Apgar Visitor Center Contacts
Apgar Visitor Center Date: 7-25-07 Duration: 3.5 hours
Contact
Total
Comments
Orientation
14
Transit Center, Bathrooms
Information
45
Trails/Trip-planning, Fire, Transit
Interpretation 7
Fish, Map Talk, Jr. Ranger, Loons,
Bears
Other
3
Comments, Bear Report
Apgar Visitor Center Date: 8-3-07 Duration: 3.5 hours
Contact
Total
Comments
Orientation
7
Transit Center, Bathrooms
Information
41
Trails/Trip-planning, Fire, Transit,
Bears
Interpretation 7
Jr. Ranger, Toads, Loons, Fire
Other
6
Comments
Apgar Visitor Center Date: 8-11-07 Duration: 3.5 hours
Contact
Total
Comments
Orientation
10
Transit Center, Bathrooms
Information
27
Trails/Trip-planning, Fire, Transit
Interpretation 7
Map Talk, Jr. Ranger, Bears,
Mountain Lions
Other
3
Comments, Bear Report
Appendix vi
Contact Averages
Average Contacts/ Hour
Location
Orientation
Fish Creek
Campground
Hidden Lake
Trail
Logan Pass
Visitor Center
Apgar Visitor
Center
Information
Interpretation
Other
0
17.3
2.3
0
Total
Contacts
19.6
1.3
4.9
1.3
0
7.5
7.5
11.2
2
1.4
22.1
2.9
10.8
2
1.1
16.8