Regarding Dimension 1, it should be noted that there are many published studies reporting knowledge and attitudinal ‘benefits’, ‘change’
and ‘impacts’ as a result of interpretation and guiding activities. These tend to measure knowledge gain or general attitudes, often with spurious links to ST outcomes (Ballantyne et al., 2009; Zeppel & Muloin, 2008). As noted in Chapter 3, Skibins et al.’s (2012) meta-analysis of 70 published studies linking interpretation principles and outcomes found many ‘pairings’
between the application of interpretation principles and knowledge, attitude and behavioural outcomes. Almost none of these included pre- and post- measures of these variables. Notwithstanding that there is some evidence of links between understanding, attitude and behaviour as discussed in Chapter 3 (Ham, 2009; Tilden, 1977), there is no guarantee that factual knowledge gained as a result of an interpretive talk or guided activity will impact on a visitor’s understanding and valuing of the site and its resources, let alone impact his or her on-site or off-site behavioural intentions and actions in ways that promote sustainability.
In addition, until recently there has been a lack of measurement tools that go beyond visitor enjoyment, satisfaction and factual recall to capture visitors’ understanding and valuing of nature and culture. Recent success in the development and testing of self-reported measures by Weiler and Ham (2010) has led to the availability of an instrument for measuring and comparing ST outcomes across sites and experiences. Their validated, multi-item, self-report instrument can be used to assess the impact of interpretive guiding on elaboration (i.e. provoking the visitor to think – a five-item scale), connection (i.e. empathy for the people or place – a four-item scale) and caring (i.e. a positive attitude towards nature or heritage preservation – a three-item scale), which collectively measure the understanding and valuing of nature and heritage. For example, a study of 288 visitors to an Australian zoo sought to assess the extent to which interpretive guiding made them think (elaborate), helped them connect (empathise) and made them care (nature appreciation) (Weiler & Smith, 2009). All respondents were visitors to a relatively new, state-of-the-art lion exhibit who were exposed to messages delivered by experienced and trained interpretive staff about the difficulties faced by lions that live outside reserves, particularly when they come in contact with humans. Each visitor was exposed to interpretation delivered via up to three different media (a static display, a zookeeper talk, interaction with a volunteer guide, an encounter with a guide engaged in role-play and a behind-the-scenes tour with a zookeeper/guide), all aimed at helping visitors to understand the lions, their habitat and the threats to their survival, and to connect with and value the species and its environment (Dimension 1), and thus associated with ST outcomes. Mean ratings on
all three scales were consistently higher for visitors exposed to greater numbers of interpretive media, with the combination of non-guided and guided interpretation resulting in higher levels of sustainable outcomes than non-guided interpretation alone (Weiler & Smith, 2009).
Another study using parallel self-reported measures of 285 Chinese visitors who were guided around an Australian heritage site for up to two hours by a bilingual, bicultural interpretive guide found somewhat lower but still positive mean ratings on elaboration, connection and attitude towards heritage preservation (Van Dijk & Weiler, 2009).
Interpretive guides can impact on visitors’ understanding of and connection with heritage, and on their attitude toward heritage conservation. Credit: Sovereign Hill Museum Association (Chinese tour guide, Sovereign Hill Outdoor Museum, Ballarat Australia)
All of this suggests that (a) interpretive guiding can and does impact visitors, at least based on self-reporting, in ways that are theoretically associated with ST outcomes. However, the measures described here relate to the outcomes as perceived by visitors, and do not assess the extent to which tour guiding actually impacts a visitor’s understanding of a site’s natural
and cultural values and thus contributes to sustainability. More direct and observable measures of understanding, beyond the overly simplistic ‘factual recall’ that has dominated earlier interpretation research, and measures of visitors’ valuing of nature and heritage, are needed in order to assess the actual impact of interpretive guiding.
In a study that involved observation and interviews with 32 local guides from five different regions in rural Madagascar, Jensen (2010) reported that local guides who had strong local ties and social mediation skills were able to enhance understanding and social interaction and thereby moderate the negative effects on communities that can come from stereotyping. In addition, positive effects such as self-esteem building among community members were observed as a result of ‘visitors’ interest in their traditions and lifestyles framed within a socially relaxed atmosphere where community members were happy to share their thoughts and knowledge with their guests’ (Jensen, 2010: 627). Jensen further argued that as a result of being employed as guides, interviewees gained the trust of the village chief and local residents, which in turn made the guides more motivated and empowered to practice ST themselves. Ormsby and Mannle (2006) and Kohl (2007) also similarly note the contribution of tour guides to social capital and capacity building, outcomes that are highlighted in the tourism literature as being closely associated with sustainability (Weiler & Ham, 2002). Pereira and Mykletun (2012: 81) comment on the potential role of guides in ‘engendering an appreciation for local products’ and assisting local artisans to produce goods that meet visitors’ expectations. Similarly, Jensen (2010: 628) also sees greater potential for guides as contributors to sustainability, posing the question: ‘Can local guides develop their middleman/honest broker roles further into some form of managerial role within a sustainable development strategy?’
Another recent study by Henning (2008) looked in particular at the degree to which tour guides communicate about local and regional sustainability issues and the practices of land managers, tourism operators and governments generally. This qualitative study in Banff National Park (Canada) included participant observation of the same guided hike on six separate occasions along with interviews with several of the participants, park staff and other stakeholders. The commercial guide conducting the walk was found to be highly successful at communicating the park agency’s sustainability practices, such as habitat preservation and restorative efforts (including past mistakes), and the environmental consequences for the park and the wider environment. The environmental messages of the guide were well received by tourists who described the content of the tour with ‘awe, respect and gratitude at the work being done’ (Henning, 2008: 190). Those interviewed could articulate specific conservation messages and actions, and some outlined how these connected with and translated into action in their home countries.
Similarly, in a particularly comprehensive and innovative study of Masoala National Park in Madagascar that included 135 semi-structured interviews and several months of participant observation, Ormsby and Mannle (2006) were able to document impacts on understanding and valuing by both visitors and local residents:
Guides provide a valuable service by explaining the park’s goals to visitors and community residents … The guides also … influence park perceptions through their presentation of park information to visitors and to communities through which visitors pass when trekking in the park. By explaining to local residents [that] tourists are coming ‘to see nature’ and the potential [environmental] benefits from visitors [via a weekly hour-long radio program], guides also play an integral role in ecotourism success through encouraging conservation …The guides also play an essential role in making connections with people in the villages and directing tourists’ money to the peripheral areas of the park. (Ormsby & Mannle, 2006: 279–280)
Finally, Poudel and Nyaupane (2013) undertook to compare the attitudes and self-reported behaviours of 230 visitors on guided and non-guided tours in the Annapurna area of Nepal. While they used only post-visit measures, they did attempt to use rigorous methods including a 20-item ST attitude scale (Choi & Sirakaya, 2006) and a 20-item ST behaviour scale that they developed themselves. Interestingly, while the attitudes and behaviours of visitors on guided tours were significantly different to those on non-guided tours on the majority of the items on both scales, visitors on non-guided tours actually scored more positively on some of the items, particularly the behavioural items. Of course, visitors were not randomly assigned to guided versus non-guided tours, thus this result may simply reflect pre- existing differences between these two groups of visitors.