Attachments_A-F.pdf

CComprehensive Interpretive Planning

National Park Service

Interpretation and Education Guideline

Attachment A

IInterpretive Planning

Department of the Interior National Park Service

Fall 2000

CContents

Preface Introduction Policy Basic Principles of Interpretive Planning Comprehensive Interpretive Plans

Section I. Long-Range Interpretive Plan Part 1. Foundation

Purpose and Significance Themes Management Goals Desired Visitor Experience Issues and Influences Affecting Interpretation Visitor Profiles Existing Interpretive Conditions

Part 2. Future Interpretive Program Personal Services Non-personal Services Partnerships Library and Collection needs Research Needs Staffing Needs Interpretive Program Costs Implementation Plan

Part 3. Appendices Section II. Annual Implementation Plan

Part 1. Summary of Annual Plan Part 2. Analysis of Current Program Part 3. Management Issues Facing Interpretation Part 4. Annual Work Plan Part 5. New Individual Program Plans Part 6. Status of Implementation Plan

Section III. Interpretive Database Part 1. Strategic Plan Part 2. Park Legislative History Part 3. Annual Media Inventory Part 4. Visitor Survey Data Part 5. Servicewide Interpretive Report Part 6. Annual VIP Report Part 7. Media Plans Part 8: Basic Park Reading List

Interpretive Concept Plan Responsibilities Who Does Interpretive Planning?

Funding Approvals

PPreface Comprehensive Interpretive Planning

Interpretation is about choices. We choose what stories to tell, whom to tell them to, and how to tell them. While these choices are rarely easy, an effective planning system can guide our decision-making and help us to “do the right thing.”

In 1995 the National Park Service adopted a unified planning system for interpreta-tion and education. This system takes proven elements of interpretive planning and, for the first time, combines them as an integrated whole. At the same time, responsi-bility for interpretive planning has been shifted to the parks.

The decades of the ’60s and ’70s could be termed the “Golden Age” of interpretive media development in the National Park System. During that period, the National Park Service added a host of new visitor centers and with them new exhibits, films, audio programs, wayside exhibits, historically furnished areas, and publications.

With this new development came increased specialization in planning and design.

Interpretive planning, which had been the responsibility of the individual parks, was centralized. Paid with development dollars, the “interpretive prospectus” provided excellent direction for the design and production of interpretive facilities and media.

This emphasis on physical improvements, however, meant that personal services planning was left to parks as a separate activity with no particular format.

The tightening budgets of the post-Bicentennial era of the late ’70s caused National Park Service managers to question the relevance of interpretive programs then being presented. Some believed that interpreters had strayed from basic park missions in order to “entertain” and to take on larger causes, such as environmental education.

Interpreters were challenged by management to show how programs supported basic park goals.

One result of the “back to basics” trend was the development of a new planning format, the Annual Statement for Interpretation (ASFI). It linked programs and services with basic interpretive themes and management goals. Unlike the interpre-tive prospectus, the ASFI was written at the park level. Like the interpretive prospec-tus, however, it had to be approved by the regional director.

By the end of the ’80s interpretive planning followed two different tracks: the interpretive prospectus served development planning needs, while the ASFI sup-ported annual operational planning. Because of the scarcity of development dollars, a park’s interpretive prospectus might reflect an outdated vision for interpretation.

While parks could write their own ASFIs, these plans concentrated primarily on the annual personal services program. They were not tied to any broader vision. Because the ASFI format proved cumbersome and time-consuming to produce, many parks stopped using them altogether.

In 1994 a team of interpretation managers, supervisors, and planners began work on a new planning chapter for “NPS-6: Interpretation and Visitor Service Guidelines.”

In September 1995, this chapter was released servicewide as an addition to NPS-6.

Excerpts from the cover memorandum stated:

While most of the components of this system have been proven elements of Inter-pretive Planning for years, they have never been gathered into a comprehensive approach that includes both long- and short-term planning needs. The intent is to create a long-range vision for park Interpretation and to simplify the annual Interpretive Planning process

This Comprehensive Interpretive Planning (CIP) process is now established in Director’s Order #6 and is the basic planning component for interpretation. The CIP is a tool for making choices. It helps parks decide what their objectives are, who their audiences are, and what mix of media and personal services to use. The product is not the plan, but an effective and efficient interpretive program that achieves manage-ment goals, provides appropriate services for our visitors, and promotes visitor experiences.

The responsibility for procuring park interpretive planning now rests with park Superintendents. Instead of waiting for their turn on a servicewide planning list, parks now have the responsibility and opportunity to seek interpretive planning from a broader range of sources: service centers, regional offices, system support offices, other parks, and private-sector contractors.

Although the CIP as defined in Director’s Order #6 is composed of specific elements, it should be clearly stated that any good planning is customized to meet the indi-vidual park’s needs, conditions, and situations. The CIP is not a recipe; rather, it is a guideline for efficient, effective, goal-driven planning. Just as parks have been empowered to pursue planning through various providers, they have also been given the responsibility to seek planning which is most appropriate to their needs.

The heart of the CIP is the Long-Range Interpretive Plan (LRIP) -- almost everything is tied to it. The LRIP defines the overall vision and long-term (five to ten years) interpretive goals of the park. The process that defines the LRIP also encourages development of targeted, realistic strategies and actions that work toward achieve-ment of the LRIP goals. Actions divided into annual, achievable steps are reproduced in the Annual Implementation Plan (AIP). Creating annual plans via this “stepping-down” of the LRIP simplifies much of the annual planning process because specific goals already have been identified in the LRIP. The last section of the CIP is the Interpretive Database (ID) which is a compilation of information needed to build the other two components. It includes media inventories, the park’s strategic plan, enabling legislation, visitor surveys, reports, a bibliography, and other basic informa-tion.

The park should update the CIP as frequently as circumstances require. The CIP should evolve to address new challenges and maintain relevance to park management efforts. By virtue of the NPS management philosophy placing more responsibility at the park level of the Service, park staffs must keep their interpretive plans up-to-date.

Interpretive planning is addressed in National Park Service Management Policies under both “Park System Planning” and “Interpretation and Education.” Policy states that interpretive planning is a vital component of the NPS planning process. Accord-ing to policy, the Strategic Plan identifies park significance and establishes manage-ment objectives, including those for interpretation. Building on these, the General Management Plan (GMP) defines desired resource conditions, desired visitor experi-ences, and any necessary development. Implementation plans, including Comprehen-sive Interpretive Plans, provide the detail necessary to put the concepts of the GMP into action. Interpretive planning is a vital component of all GMP efforts, Pre-Design Plans, Special Resource Studies, Strategic Plans, and Value Analyses.

Why is interpretive planning important? Interpretive planning serves as the basis for management actions regarding interpretation within a park. Interpretive Planning also identifies key visitor experiences and recommends ways to facilitate them. According to Management Policies Chapter 7 for Interpretation and Education:

...management plans, CIPs, and other interpretive documents for each park will establish a balance of in-park and outreach interpretive services, based upon criteria such as park significance statements and themes, levels and types of visitor use, the nature of park resources, and park management goals.

IIntroduction Interpretive planning is a strategic process which, in its implementation, achieves management objectives for interpretation and education by facilitating meaningful connections between visitors and park resources. Interpretive planning comprehen-sively analyzes all interpretive needs and determines a wide array of interpretive services, facilities, and programs to communicate in the most efficient and effective way the park’s purpose, significance, and themes. Interpretive planning is a goal-driven process that determines appropriate means to achieve desired visitor experi-ences and provide opportunities for audiences to form their own intellectual and emotional connections with meanings/significance inherent in the resources while protecting and preserving those resources.

PPolicy

BBasic Principles of Interpretive Planning

The interpretive planning process is goal-driven. Goal-driven planning is based upon a hierarchical system of goals, beginning with the Organic Act of 1916, specific area legislation, and the Strategic Plan which then defines the “big picture” and the vision for the park, its resources, and public use. Goals, which direct the planning process, are rooted in a clear identification of the purpose and significance of the area. Pur-pose is derived largely from the park’s legislation and defines “why” the unit was established and what its purpose is today. Significance statements describe the importance or distinctiveness of the area and its resources.

Interpretive planning defines a variety of visitor experience opportunities for audi-ences, both inside and outside the park. Visitor experience is everything that visitors do, sense, and learn; it includes knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and values; it is affected by experiences prior to the visit and affects behavior after the visit.

Interpretive planning determines appropriate interpretive services, facilities, pro-grams, and media to communicate in the most effective way the park’s purpose, significance, compelling stories, themes and values, while protecting and preserving park resources. Sound interpretive planning defines desirable and diverse experi-ences, recommends ways to facilitate those experiences, and assures they are acces-sible. The outcome of interpretive planning is effectiveness in communicating the park’s story in a larger context, ideas, meanings, and the values associated with the resources themselves, and achieving the balance between resource protection and visitor use and enjoyment.

A person who has demonstrated competencies in interpretive planning will facilitate interpretive planning. Portions of the planning process will be developed by park staff guided by interpretive planners using interpretive planning principles and standards.

CComprehensive Interpretive Plans

The Comprehensive Interpretive Plan forms the overall vision and basis for decision-making relating to interpretation in a park. It provides both a long-range and short-range view, including all media and personal services. The Comprehensive Interpre-tive Plan is not an accumulation of information, but a solid blueprint for the park’s interpretive future. The three principle sections of the Comprehensive Interpretive Plan are the Long-Range Interpretive Plan, the Annual Implementation Plan, and the Interpretive Database.

These three sections of the CIP are covered on the following pages.

Interpretive planning is flexible, ongoing, interdisciplinary, responsive to client needs, and management-oriented, rather than development or issue-driven. Planning establishes a foundation for long-term direction-setting, short-term problem solving, and annual program analysis.

The interpretive planning process extends beyond park boundaries. Planning incorpo-rates concessions and cooperating associations as well as local communities, regional partnerships, subject matter experts, and subscribes to the principles of sustainability.

Interpretive planning decisions are based on current research. Decisions regarding personal and non-personal services are rooted in solid subject-matter expertise, and reflect knowledge of visitor expectations, demographics, changing social trends and needs.

Interpretive planning is based on a thorough understanding of the most current and appropriate interpretive techniques and services, and draws upon current research and educational philosophy in program planning.

Interpretive planning includes practical strategies for implementation including funding and management alternatives.

CIP Section I: Long-Range Interpretive Plan (LRIP) This section describes the foundational information that will guide the development of the desired future interpretive program. The long-range vision of the intepretive program and the actions needed to achieve it complete this section.

CIP Section II: Annual Implementation Plan (AIP) This section is a one-year operating plan for the interpretive program. It is a working blueprint describing what interpretive services are offered to the public this year. It also includes budget and staffing information, actions and challenges, and a compari-son of last year’s program with this year’s program.

CIP Section III: Interpretive Database (ID) This section contains references to materials that support the interpretive program (such as the park reading list, funding proposals, various reports, etc.).

Section I: Long-Range Interpretive Plan (LRIP) The Long-Range Interpretive Plan provides a vision for the future of interpretation and education. The projected life span of the Long-Range Interpretive Plan is recommended to be five to ten years. This may vary with individual park needs and circumstances and should be updated as necessary. It addresses both personal ser-vices and media, and is prepared by the park staff and park partners/community with a facilitator skilled in interpretive and educational planning. It also provides the foundation elements for the Annual Implementation Plan and should be consistent with other current planning documents.

The roles of the park staff, partners, and the planning facilitator will be identified in the Project Agreement prior to the start of planning. The roles will vary depending on circumstances and the abilities of park staff or facilitator.

Part 1: Foundation Purpose and Significance. This section presents a brief narrative of the legislated purpose of the park and a description of its overall significance. These statements are based on the park’s legislative history and Strategic Plan.

Themes. Themes define the most important ideas or concepts communicated to the public about a park. They convey the tangible/intangible meanings and universal concepts inherent in the park’s resources. They should be expressed in clear state-ments (usually one or two sentences), and may be divided into primary and second-ary statements. Additional information may be added if useful in clarifying meaning.

These statements connect park resources to larger processes, systems, ideas, and values. Themes should also be used to define the core content of educational mes-sages that the park offers. These themes are the building blocks on which interpretive services and educational programs are based.

Management Goals. Goals describe management’s intent in offering interpretive and educational programs and services. They are derived from the park’s Strategic Plan. This section may also contain objectives that define specific outcomes for the interpretive and educational programs, such as bolstering community support, build-ing future constituencies, and providing opportunities for life-long learning.

Desired Visitor Experience. The description of Visitor Experience relative to interpretation defines how the interpretive process will facilitate a physical, intellec-tual, and emotional experience based on previously described purpose, significance, themes, and goals. Visitor Experience Goals describe opportunities for the public and suggest how interpretation may change the way the public, including organized groups, will think, feel, or act as a result of their park experience. With regard to educational programs this section describes what educators, teachers, and students will experience when participating in an educational program.

Issues and Influences Affecting Interpretation. This section includes long-range servicewide initiatives, influences and opportunities inside and outside the park, resource-based issues, and internal issues that affect interpretation and education.

Visitor Profiles. This is a broad description of park audiences and their needs and includes both actual and potential audiences. It should include in-park, out-of-park, and education audiences. When possible, this analysis should depend on systematic surveys.

Existing Interpretive Conditions. This brief summary establishes a point of departure for future personal services, media development, and facility proposals.

The park’s existing media should be inventoried and updated in the Servicewide Media Inventory Database System (MIDS), and not listed in the LRIP.

Part 2: Future Interpretive Program This part describes the mix of services and facilities, both personal and non-personal, that are necessary to communicate the park themes and facilitate identified visitor experiences. The elements in this section will be based on the goals and visions established in Part 1: Foundations. Care should be taken to consider the diversity of park visitors, including education audiences, in all planning. There are a wide range of approaches in describing and achieving a park’s future interpretive program.

All Future Interpretive Program descriptions should consider the following:

Personal Services. This section describes the role that personal services play in providing significance and context to the overall visitor experience. These services are also relevant for off-site educational activities, where preliminary connections are made through individuals rather than places. The potential use of facilities or media for educational purposes (i.e., education centers, residential programs, electronic field trips, etc.) should be explored here.

Non-personal Services. This section assesses the need for interpretive and educa-tional media which includes exhibits, waysides, publications, audio-visual programs, mass and/or electronic media, study guides, workbooks, educational kits, and traveling exhibits. This section could include written estimates (that consider potential overhead and are adjusted annually for inflation) and future media needs.

Media should allow for multiple points of view to meet the needs of a diverse public, and assessments should be made accordingly.

Partnerships. This section identifies those partners involved in the delivery of interpretive services and specifies their role. Partners include cooperating associa-tions, friends groups, concessioners, other agencies, schools, and other educational

Library and Collections Needs. This section defines library needs and potential uses of the collection to help achieve the actions of this plan.

Research Needs. This section identifies research needed to support the actions of this plan. Research should contribute to the efforts to identify “untold stories” within the park. Collaborations between interpreters, educators, historians, ethnographers, scientists, and other park divisions are essential. Research related to analyzing the visitor experience, evaluating the effectiveness of existing media, and post-occupancy evaluation for new media is also important.

Staffing Needs. The park’s future staffing and training needs are identified here, including the staff’s participation in the Interpretive Development Program.

Interpretive Program Costs. This is based upon a clear definition of the personal and non-personal analysis; this analysis will help establish annual and projected budgets. This section also identifies alternative management and funding strategies, and a strategy for acquiring funds for projects.

Implementation Plan. This action plan lists those actions necessary to imple-ment the Long-Range Interpretive Plan, assigns responsibility, and sets target dates.

This section is a critical element; each Annual Implementation Plan (AIP) over the next five to ten years will be based on this LRIP action summary.

Part 3: Appendices Only those resources that are referenced somewhere in the LRIP should be included in this appendix section; all other reports, charts, demographics, school profiles, statistics, and other interpretive resources should be placed or referenced in Section III: Interpretive Database (ID).

Section II: Annual Implementation Plan (AIP) The Annual Implementation Plan is based on the Long-Range Interpretive Plan. It is an action-oriented document, corresponding to the park’s budget work planning cycle. This plan should be brief and contain the following:

Part 1: Summary of Annual Plan An executive summary of the park’s interpretation and education program should be prepared for the coming year. This summary should be a narrative overview of programs and other activities, and should be no more than one page in length.

Part 2: Analysis of Current Program The successes and failures of the past year’s program should be analyzed as a basis for planning for the coming year. It could include costs, audiences served, and objectives achieved. It may contain an analysis using data gathered for the Servicewide Interpretive Report (10-769).

institutions. The plan should provide the flexibility to take advantage of partnership opportunities, including services or facilities appropriate for private sector initiatives.

Part 3: Management Issues Facing Interpretation A brief summary should be written that describes issues and concerns which the interpretive program should address in the coming year such as resource manage-ment, maintenance, safety, anniversaries, changes in local school curricula, etc.

Part 4: Annual Work Plan This part will vary from park to park. Most park division chiefs submit goals and work plans for each year to the Superintendent. Normally, such work plans include actions to be taken, responsibility for each action, and due dates. This represents a critical element that links the Long-Range Interpretive Plan to the annual operation.

Part 5: New Individual Service Plans Outlines for new interpretive programs should be placed here for the coming year .

In the following years, these plans should shift to Section III, Interpretive Database.

Parks may use the Individual Service Plan format or develop a new format.

Part 6: Status of Implementation Plan This is an update of the LRIP’s Implementation Plan. It shows what parts of the Implementation Plan will be completed in the coming year. This is a critical link that connects the AIP to the LRIP.

Section III: Interpretive Database (ID) The Interpretive Database is a compilation of plans, documents, and inventories that are gathered together or referenced in one place to facilitate planning and implemen-tation. At an early stage in the planning process, the park staff is encouraged to begin assembling the Interpretive Database.

This database should include at least the following items:

Part 1: Strategic Plan A copy of the park’s current GPRA Strategic Plan.

Part 2: Park Legislative History A copy of the park’s enabling legislation, Presidential Proclamation, or other legisla-tive history.

Part 3: Annual Media Inventory A printed copy of the park’s portion of the servicewide Media Inventory Database System (MIDS) describing the condition of interpretive media.

Part 4: Visitor Survey Data Any survey information which has been gathered about visitors and visitor use of the park. Any data regarding the number and demographics of teachers, students, school groups served in educational programs. Any results from the Visitor Services Card Survey or a Visitor Services Project.

Part 6: Annual Volunteers-In-Parks Report Place a copy of the Volunteers-In-Parks Report (10-150) in the plan each year.

Part 7: Media Plans Individual media plans (museum exhibits, wayside exhibits, audiovisual, publica-tions, etc.), may be included by reference, as applicable.

Part 8: Basic Park Reading List A list of the books and information resources most important for a beginning inter-preter to know in order to understand the park story. This should include educational handbooks, guides, and directories.

Other Potential ID Components:

General Management Plan Cultural Landscape Report Historic Structures Report

Part 5: Servicewide Interpretive Report Place a copy of the Servicewide Interpretive Report (10-769) in the plan each year.

IInterpretive Concept Plan

RREsponsibilities Leadership for interpretive planning originates in the Washington Office of Interpre-tation and Education and the Harpers Ferry Center’s Department of Interpretive Planning; these offices have responsibility for the Servicewide interpretive planning policies and guidelines. Generally, all planning that involves or affects visitor experi-ence will include interpretive planning. This includes the interpretive components of General Management Plans, Pre-Design, media planning, and interpretive facility design and will be based on appropriate portions of Comprehensive Interpretive Plans.

Parks are responsible for accomplishing their own Comprehensive Interpretive Plans through a variety of means. Comprehensive Interpretive Plans will be collaborative efforts among park staffs, regional offices, Harpers Ferry Center, and/or contractors.

The process begins with the park Chief of Interpretation identifying a need for a plan to the park Superintendent. Approval of the CIP rests with the park Superintendent.

The roles of the CIP participants will be agreed upon in the Project Agreement which is a contract between the key participants in the planning process. It includes what will be done, when it will be accomplished, who will do it, and what it will cost.

For parks that share common themes with other parks, or parks that are involved in collaborative operations with other agencies, or for large parks with complex themes and multiple, diverse units, an Interpretive Concept Plan could be developed. Con-cept plans unite planning efforts by identifying overall themes, objectives, and shared visitor experiences. These plans should be tailored to the individual needs of the situation, taking into consideration the principles and elements previously described.

FFunding

AApprovals The Chief of Interpretation recommends the approval of the Comprehensive Interpre-tive Plan to the Superintendent for final approval. The Superintendent determines the distribution of the CIP.

As there is no servicewide source of funding for interpretive planning, the park will identify the specific amount and source of funding for accomplishing the Compre-hensive Interpretive Plan.

WWho Does Interpretive Planning?

An interpretive planner who is an experienced interpreter facilitates the Comprehen-sive Interpretive Planning process. This person should be competent in interpretive planning and team facilitation; he/she should also possess skills in writing, problem-solving, team building, and an understanding of media applications and personal service programs. Interpretive planners for the Service will include planners in the Harpers Ferry Center’s Department of Interpretive Planning, regional and support offices, contractors, and other planners who possess the requisite skills.

Interpretive planners work with the park to assemble a team that may include: park staff from interpretation and other divisions, staff from other parks, other planners and designers, media specialists, subject matter experts, educators, consultants, partners, and the public.

A Guide to Interpre ve Planning in the Na onal Park Service

A G ui de t o

In te rp re ti ve

P la nn in g in t h e N at io na l P ar k

S er vi ce

Planning for

Interpretation and

Visitor

Experience

Division of Interpre ve Planning Harpers Ferry Center

Na onal Park Service

DRAFT

Attachment B

Pla

The Planning Process

How can the agency meet visitor experience goals in the most cost‐effec ve manner, considering long‐ term costs and sustainable values? Most interpre‐ ve planning teams go through some version of the following steps.

1. Prepare for planning:

Review park legisla on and management goals

Review visitor studies and visita on sta s cs

Become familiar with key resource issues and informa on

Refer to subsequent and concurrent planning efforts

Solicit input from stakeholders who won’t be in the planning group

2. Iden fy and achieve consensus on the scope of the plan, and on overall goals and issues; include visitor experience, themes, resource, and manage‐ ment goals and issues.

3. Collect informa on and assess current condi‐ ons; include informa on on visitors, cultural and natural environment, media, programs and other visitor ac vi es, issues, goals, other plans, etc.

4. Determine the best ways to achieve goals and provide desired experiences through interpre ve media, facili es, ac vi es, and contact with re‐ sources.

These phases may overlap, change, mul ply or di‐ vide. Planning is both sequen al and cyclic: a pro‐ ject has a beginning and an end, but earlier phases will o en be revisited.

Why Do Interpre ve Planning?

Good interpre ve planning ensures that essen al park values and experiences are accessible to visi‐ tors, and that facili es and media are designed to accomplish visitor use and resource preserva on goals. Interpre ve planning will help park staff:

develop consensus on a long‐range vision for interpreta on and visitor experience provide key visitor experiences while protec ng resources and enhancing stewardship develop the most cost‐effec ve and sustainable solu ons to visitor and resource issues effec vely use interpreta on and educa on to meet management goals (outputs and out‐ comes) fulfill mandates to serve the public AND protect resources

Good interpre ve planning ensures that essen al park values and experiences are accessible to visi‐ tors, and that facili es and media are designed to accomplish visitor use and resource preserva on goals. Planning should be a dynamic, con nuing process, not only ed to development or solving the issue of the day, but a con nuum that supports dai‐ ly opera ons in the context of realizing a long‐range vision for visitors and resources. On the other hand, planning is not an end in itself; good planning di‐ rects us to do smart, effec ve things, and helps us avoid doing ineffec ve or damaging things. Inter‐ pre ve planning is needed because visitor enjoy‐ ment is part of the NPS mission, because there can‐ not be parks without visitors, and because resource preserva on requires public understanding and support.

Planning is bringing the future into the pre-sent so that you can do something about it now.

Alan Lakein

The People Involved

There are many ways to structure an effec ve inter‐ pre ve planning team; it is doub ul that any one approach will prove superior in every situa on.

Team members should have the experience, knowledge, and me to do their assigned tasks. The following groups may be involved to varying de‐ grees in the planning effort:

park staff (preferably including management, field staff, various disciplines and divisions; con‐ sider including staff from another park) an experienced interpre ve planner as team captain, leader, and/or facilitator (this planner might be an HFC planner or IDIQ contractor) interpre ve specialists from the regional office media, facility, or landscape design specialists current and poten al partners (especially Na ve

Americans and/or other ethnic groups related to the park story) representa ves of affected audiences, including park visitors and advocacy groups subject ma er experts publica on specialists (e.g., graphics, edi ng)

It may be wise to try to involve everyone who will play a role in designing or implemen ng the recom‐ menda ons. The final call on involvement usually rests with the park superintendent. Team captains must balance the values of including a wide variety of exper se with constraints of me, money and group dynamics. It is helpful to decide on the roster for the planning team and consultants early in the planning process; this may be recorded in a scope of work that is agreed to by all major par cipants.

While short‐term savings may result from a park providing their own planning, quality (and long‐ term savings) usually will be enhanced by including outside perspec ves and guidance from experi‐ enced interpre ve planners. Such planners work at

Harpers Ferry Center, many regional offices, some parks, other agencies, and in the private sector.

Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.

Alexander Hamilton

“Interpretation provides “opportunities for visitors to interact with park re-sources in a manner that is both safe for visitors and leaves the resource un-impaired. What has been termed "visitor experience planning" is the core of park planning and development.

Dave Dame

Planning for Interpreta on and Visitor Experience

WHAT SHOULD AN INTERPRETIVE PLAN INCLUDE?

The scope of an interpre ve plan falls within a spec‐ trum from design of a single exhibit or program through general management planning. In all cases, recommenda ons at the design end should be based on sound, relevant, and agreed‐upon conclusions at the planning end.

There are several important general criteria for the form and content of interpre ve plans. An interpre‐ ve plan should be the best possible representa on of that par cular planning process, that unique set of resources and visitors, that set of goals and recom‐ menda ons, those contemporary condi ons, and those assump ons about the future. An interpre ve plan should also reflect relevant agency policies and guidelines.

Depending on the needs of each project, sec ons in addi on to those discussed in this document may be useful for an interpre ve plan. These include cost es mates, implementa on schedules and responsi‐ bili es, resource and ac vity inventories, staffing, partnerships, study collec ons, preliminary designs, value analysis, and research needs and results.

In the balance of this chapter we introduce most of the elements commonly included in goal‐driven in‐ terpre ve plans. The overall goals, from mission through themes and objec ves, are frequently de‐ fined in general management plans and strategic plans, and can be incorporated in the interpre ve plan.

More specifically, an interpre ve plan should meet most of the following criteria:

represent an accurate and useful version of both the consensus and the diverse perspec ves that emerged during the planning process express significant, understandable, achievable, and appropriate goals involve major stakeholders, including subject ma er experts, those who will implement the plan, and those who will be affected by the ac‐ ons recommended in the plan recommend cost‐effec ve, crea ve, accessible, sustainable, and achievable ac ons that meet visitor experience and resource protec on goals, and conform to agency mission and park purpose and goals provide understandable and useful guidance to program, media, and facility planners and design‐ ers iden fy rela onships and influences among relat‐ ed planning and management ac ons describe and picture significant resources and experiences sufficiently for readers who may not be familiar with the area convey major messages to various readers, in‐ cluding those who skim, those interested only in the major points, and those looking for a detailed analysis convey a sense of importance, significance, and passion for the resources, stories, and experienc‐ es help move the planning process to the next stag‐ es (design and produc on) be interes ng, readable, and understandable

Good planning ensures that interpretive facilities, media, and programs work to-

GOAL‐DRIVEN PLANNING

Interpre ve plans are goal‐driven. They start with iden fying the broadest goals relevant to the project or area. Within these broad guidelines, more specific goals and/or objec ves are composed. The number and specificity of goal or objec ve statements will vary with each project. Relevant issues (problems) and assump ons (givens) are considered. Ac on ele‐ ments may be associated with goals or issues. One purpose of working within a goal‐driven framework is to make sure that consensus has been reached on the results to be achieved. Then discussion can focus on the best ways to achieve those results. This ap‐ proach helps avoid the trap of automa cally design‐ ing one's favorite medium or program without con‐ sidering desired outcomes.

Example of Goals Used for Interpre ve Planning

In the example below, the three bulleted items set the background for the ar cula on of “DEPO Goal for Interpreta on #3:”

Pacific West Region Strategic Goal #3: Engaging

Youth: Release the power of the parks to invigor‐ ate youth to embrace the heritage of our country and health of the planet though a revitaliza on of ci zenship and science.

Primary DEPO Fundamental Resources and Val‐ ues addressed by this goal: Opportuni es for sci‐ en fic study and shared learning about past, pre‐ sent and future environmental condi ons and connected bio‐geophysical processes.

DEPO Significance: For a small area, Devils Post‐ pile Na onal Monument supports and maintains unusually rich ecological diversity reflec ve of its loca on at the intersec on of three bio‐ geographic regions. The physical se ng and con‐ text create excep onal opportuni es for scien‐ fic study and shared learning.

DEPO Goal for Interpreta on #3, Youth Involvement:

Provide science‐based learning opportuni es for youth, and to help fulfill park goals, as a means of inves ng in future genera ons of ci zens and re‐ sources.

PURPOSE

Purpose statements describe why an area was set aside, as well as what the purposes of the area are today. Legisla on, legisla ve history, public par ci‐ pa on, ar cles of incorpora on, and agency rule‐ making can provide the basis for purpose state‐ ments. From these, the planning team derives clear, concise, and relevant purpose statements. Purposes may have been developed for a general manage‐ ment or strategic plan; these may then be incorpo‐ rated.

Example of a Purpose Statement

The purposes of Pictured Rocks Na onal Lakeshore are to:

Preserve a por on of the Great Lakes shoreline for its geographic, scien fic, scenic, and historic features.

Provide opportuni es for public benefit in recre‐ a on, educa on, enjoyment, and inspira on.

Protect the character and use of the shoreline zone while allowing economic u liza on of the inland buffer zone renewable resources.

The first two statements above elaborate on the tra‐ di onal purposes of preserva on and enjoyment.

The third recognizes the park’s legislated buffer zone.

SIGNIFICANCE

Significance statements describe the importance or dis nc veness of the area. These statements are based on resource inventories, but are more than an inventory. Significance statements may exist in area legisla on, legisla ve histories, scien fic and historical studies, or general management or strate‐ gic plans; the planning team needs to revisit these and update or clarify them if necessary.

Park significance statements:

describe why an area is important within a glob‐ al, na onal, regional, and systemwide context;

are directly linked to the purpose of the park;

are substan ated by data or consensus; and reflect the most current scien fic or scholarly inquiry and cultural percep ons, which may have changed since the park’s establishment.

Example of Significance Statements from St. Croix

Na onal Scenic Riverway:

The St. Croix Na onal Scenic Riverway contains an unrivaled combina on of excep onal natural, scenic, aesthe c, cultural, and recrea onal val‐ ues.

The St. Croix and Namekagon rivers serve as a protected north‐south corridor and refuge for large popula ons of diverse flora and fauna in‐ cluding federal‐listed and state‐listed endan‐ gered species.

Riverway resources occur at the convergence of the three major biomes: prairie, deciduous hard‐ wood forest, and coniferous forest.

A diversity of scenic, geologic, economic, cultur‐ al, natural, and recrea onal resources combine to provide an outstanding and accessible public resource in the Upper Midwest.

The St. Croix Na onal Scenic Riverway resources exist within close proximity to major urban pop‐ ula on centers in the Upper Midwest.

A wide variety of high‐quality recrea onal expe‐ riences can be found along the Riverway that may sa sfy visitor expecta ons from solitude to dynamic social interac ons.

The St. Croix and Namekagon rivers func oned as a tradi onal transporta on corridor between the Great Lakes and Mississippi valley and retain cultural resources (archeological and historical) that reflect thousands of years of human use.

As one of the original rivers designated under the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the St.

Croix Na onal Scenic Riverway serves as a win‐ dow into the environmental history of the Unit‐ ed States and the revolu onary change from riv‐ er exploita on to river protec on.

Significance statements resemble interpre ve themes, but may be larger in scope. Significance statements can lead directly to themes.

It is important to note that addi onal significances may have emerged since an area was originally set aside. These may result from new scholarship, ac‐ quisi on of resources, or environmental changes.

For example, Kennesaw Mountain Na onal Ba le‐ field Park has added the significance statement:

Due to extensive development in the area, the

Park has become the largest free green space in the Atlanta region.

Without goals, and plans to reach them, you are like a ship that has set sail with no destination.

Fitzhugh Dodson

INTERPRETIVE THEMES

Interpre ve themes organize large‐scale meanings and concepts related to park’s resources.

Interpre ve Themes:

are based upon park purpose and significance, resources, and values;

reveal and clarify meanings, concepts, contexts, and values represented by park resources;

provide guidance to develop visitor experience;

and focus visitor understanding and apprecia on of the significance of park resources.

The set of interpre ve themes is complete when it provides the structure necessary for park staff to de‐ velop opportuni es for visitors to explore and relate to all of the park significances and fundamental re‐ sources and values.

Themes must be accurate and reflect current schol‐ arship and science. Sound themes encourage explo‐ ra on of the context in which events or natural pro‐ cesses occurred and the effects of those events and processes. They go beyond a mere descrip on of the event or process to foster mul ple opportuni es to experience and consider the park and its resources.

Themes help to explain why a park story is relevant to people who are connected, as well as those who are unconnected, to an event, me, or place.

While themes are important as an organiza onal tool to guide management decisions, they are not intended for public use. The themes offer park staff guidance to develop visitor experiences, and what ma ers to the public is how these themes are repre‐ sented through park services, media, programming, and facili es.

Examples of Theme Statements:

Following are the revised interpre ve themes for

Casa Grande Na onal Monument:

Diverse oral tradi ons of ancient Sonoran Desert people and the evoca ve Casa Grande Ruins pro‐ vide insight into the ability of humans to thrive within the constraints of challenging natural con‐ di ons, and raise ques ons about the sustaina‐ bility of a modern society that does not live with‐ in those constraints.

The ancestral people of the Sonoran Desert ap‐ plied tradi onal knowledge of engineering, hy‐ drology, and astronomy, and prac ced economic and resource planning that enabled them to live comfortably throughout the region.

The cultural landscape of the Gila River Valley, which includes Casa Grande Ruins and surround‐ ing communi es, has been home to ancestral

Sonoran Desert peoples and their descendants for thousands of years. This landscape is sacred to the people of the six tradi onally associated tribes and speaks of ancestral homeland, iden ‐ ty, and tradi on.

The establishment of Casa Grande Ruins as the first archeological reserve in 1892 sparked the beginning of America’s archeological preserva‐ on movement, from which we all benefit today.

VISITOR EXPERIENCE

Interpre ve planning describes visitor experience opportuni es. We cannot require that visitors en‐ gage in these ac vi es, learn these facts, no ce the‐ se feelings, or marvel at this vista. But we do iden fy the important experiences that should be available.

Important visitor experiences may deal with emo‐ ons, impressions, rela onships, or other subjec ve elements that may be difficult to express in a linear or objec ve manner. They are nonetheless essen al.

Do not let perceived "fuzziness" or lack of specificity prevent you from describing important visitor expe‐ riences. But all experiences should relate to park purpose, significance, and desired outcomes.

Visitor Experience Goals

The planning team lists the important experiences that should be available to visitors. Experiences in‐ clude knowledge, a tudes, behavior, and sensory experiences. The knowledge por on is covered by interpre ve themes. But don’t stop there; few visi‐ tors come to parks just to learn informa on. Visitor experience goals describe opportuni es for visitors to derive meanings and values from park resources and experiences.

Visitor experience goals and statements lead directly to interpre ve media, ac vi es or facili es; they help planners decide among various op ons for ac‐ vi es and media; and they help designers cra spe‐ cific approaches to media and facili es.

Example of visitor goals from Andersonville Na on‐ al Historic Site:

Visitors to Andersonville Na onal Historic Site should have the opportunity to:

Locate the site easily from major transporta on corridors.

Access basic informa on and orienta on to the site quickly from all key entry points to the site.

Explore and make a first‐hand connec on with some of the key sites and stories of this historic place.

Gain a basic understanding of the Civil War and

Andersonville’s role in it – in par cular, that

Andersonville was never a ba lefield, and that soldiers arrived here by train a er capture at major ba les much farther north.

Visit and become engaged in the themes and stories portrayed in the Na onal Prisoner of War

Museum.

Understand and appreciate that Andersonville

Na onal Historic Site is a Na onal Memorial dedicated to all U.S. Prisoners of War in all wars.

Use self‐guided tour materials, museum materi‐ als, or assistance from interpreters to pursue some of the many stories and perspec ves on

Andersonville, the Civil War, or the POW experi‐ ence according to their own individual interests.

Be able to access online records and archives rela ng to individuals, states, or military units known to have been imprisoned or buried at An‐ dersonville.

Tour the Andersonville Na onal Cemetery and explore its different areas and monuments.

Enjoy a quiet, peaceful atmosphere conducive to contempla on, solitude, and respect.

Visitor experience goals describe oppor-tunities and targets rather than achieve-ment; they don’t have to be measured to be useful.

AUDIENCES

Planning for audiences includes considering mo ‐ va ons and expecta ons, and projec ng and pre‐ dic ng trends. Visitors are individuals; but describ‐ ing major visitor groups yields poten ally useful approxima ons. Targe ng groups such as elemen‐ tary school students, family vaca oners, website users, interstate travelers, backcountry users, or beach users enables planners to be er iden fy and serve primary audiences. It is also important to iden fy those who aren’t coming to the park, and ask if there are issues of access or opportunity.

The planning team may consider ways to reach out to previously uninvolved audiences.

Real park audiences differ in many ways: age, gen‐ der, ethnic backgrounds, expecta ons, types of groups, frequency of visits, socioeconomic status, educa on, and knowledge. Not all differences are significant. Time, money, and pa ence usually pre‐ vent audience analysis in exhaus ve detail, but the major segments and relevant differences should be described. Planners and designers should try to match visitor diversity with experiences suited to the major groups represented (as well as matching experiences to resource condi ons, fragility, and accessibility). Think about addressing the following ques ons about audiences in your interpre ve plan:

How many people visit the area? in what pa erns (daily, weekly, seasonally, yearly, ...)?

How long do they stay?

Where do they come from?

Why do they come? What are they interested in?

What do they expect from their visit? What do they know about your area, resources, stories, regula ons, opportuni es, etc.?

Who is not coming, and why?

How do visitors feel and what do they think…