The Interpreter’s Dilemma and what visitors think about it (Patrick Lehnes)

1 Introduction: an excursion on the Belchen Summit October, 12, 2000 on the Belchen Summit in the Southern Black Forest (in the very South-West of Germany): An international group of experts in Heritage Interpretation from Scotland, England, Germany, France, Slovakia and Austria are visiting the Belchen Discovery trail. The author of this paper had planned the interpretation, written the texts and had been responsible for its implementation. This excursion should serve as an example within an international workshop. The group had the task to test a provisional system of recommendations and standards for Heritage Interpretation which had been proposed by the Transinterpret project (c.f. Lehnes & Zányi 2004). In order to allow an unbiased application of the criteria, no background information on the objectives of the Belchen Discovery trail had been given in advance. Demonstrating the Discovery Trail to these experts invited some critical remarks… “You should not interpret that bluebells which people can identify only during the short time period while they blossom! Why did you not choose the heather?” “Those panels are old fashioned! However they do not disturb the splendid views.” “A common theme is missing!” “Too much text for an audience on leisure!” “Several obvious questions remain unanswered!” “No smell, touch or hands-on experience is provided: Just an outdated look-and-see trail!” …and it caused quite a hard time for the author, who had intended to create an example of good practice. On the other hand these negative experts’ judgments were contrasting the positive feedback, which had been collected so far by a small number of qualitative visitors’ interviews and by the local tourism agencies. This obvious discrepancy and being aware of the reasons for several of the criticised shortcomings revealed what may be called the “interpreter’s dilemma”: Although most quality criteria and recommendations in technical literature on Heritage Interpretation are well reasoned; In practice, however, there are sometimes good reasons not to meet these abstract criteria. Some criteria for good practice tend to contradict others. This paper exemplifies dealing with such a “dilemma” while planning the Belchen Discovery Trail; it presents some preliminary results of still ongoing visitor surveys on 1 this example; and it discusses some first conclusions for setting up quality standards for interpretive provision.

2 A site that draws attention: the Belchen Summit Trail in the Black Forest The creation of the Belchen trail has been part of a bigger project “Heritage Interpretation to Promote Sustainable Tourism” (Lehnes & Glawion, 2000). This pilot project within the Naturpark Südschwarzwald (Southern Black Forest Nature Park) comprises the whole process from the feasibility study and interpretive planning to implementation. A network of nine self-guided trails was developed in the districts of 8 villages and the rural town of Schönau. The area is situated in the Southern Black Forest on the eastern slope of the Belchen (1414 m) and in the valley of the Große Wiese River. Each trail has a central topic – ranging from Palaeozoic geology, the traces of the last glaciation in the ice-age to the history of the town up to recent times.

Figure 1: A series of booklets in combination with numbered posts along the discovery trails encourage the visitors to notice special features and provide background explanations (Photo Lehnes 2001).

In September 1999 the first interpretive trail on the Belchen summit was opened. In May 2001 all 9 Discovery Trails were officially launched. The project had a clear priority: Promotion of sustainable tourism by offering opportunities for visitors to experience the specials features and characteristics of their holiday area. Other objectives were to raise awareness for the rich natural and cultural

2 history and to support marketing of regional products. From the scientific point of view the pilot project aimed to transfer the thematic approach to Heritage Interpretation (e.g. Ham 1992) to Germany and adjust it to the region’s main target group, which are walking and hiking tourists. An additional aim of this applied project has been setting the stage for empirical field research, mainly by visitor surveys and visitor observation.

Figure 2: A solid rock next to the “Trail back to the Palaeozoic” is cut and polished – like a gravestone. Now it provides in situ evidence about the volcanic history of an ancient mountain range. The booklet interprets the silent language of the minerals to the dramatic story of melting rock (Photo Lehnes 2002).

In comparison to the other eight discovery trails the Belchen summit trail is situated in an extraordinary place. It leads to the top of the Belchen Mountain which is the third highest summit in the Black Forest. The spectacular views to the Alpine chain, the Upper Rhine Rift Valley and the Vosges Mountains attract more than 200 000 visitors per year – right into the centre of an important nature reserve. Because of the virtually and really exposed nature of the Belchen summit, interpretive planning has been influenced by strong driving forces from different directions (c.f. planning approaches as defined by Brochu 2003): 1. The top priority of supporting sustainable tourism calls for a market based planning approach (Brochu 2003, 15). Consequently the planning was preceded by a survey among tourists staying in two different destinations of the Black Forest (Lehnes 1997). It revealed that most tourists appreciate to learn more about the characteristics of the region and the special features of its natural and cultural sites. In this respect the market-based

3 planning approach demanded for a mainly resource-based planning (c.f. below) for the whole discovery trails project. Concerning the type of interpretive facilities the pre-study gave evidence that tourists to the Black Forest clearly prefer self-guided interpretive trails instead of guided tours, museums and exhibitions, slide shows or more detailed books. Belchen visitors have been interviewed on which topics would be most interesting to them. Besides the expected topics dealing with the special features of the Belchen and the distant views this small enquiry had an unexpected outcome: Several visitors were wondering about stumps of small trees which obviously had been sawed off in the heart of the nature reserve. 2. The nature reserve is managed by a governmental nature conservation agency that provided significant funding for this trail. Therefore – in contrast to the other trails – the additional objectives of this agency had to be taken into account (c.f. objective-based planning approach by Brochu 2003, 19). The conservation agency wished to give the visitors an idea of its work, i.e. biotope management and visitor flow management. Visitors should learn that despite the Belchen summit seems to be a wilderness in fact it is a vulnerable cultural landscape; and its biotopes need human interference in order to preserve their rich biodiversity – e.g. cutting down trees that threaten rare species. The necessity to convey this message was underpinned by the above mentioned interviews. 3. The extraordinary nature of the reserve and the spectacular views along the trail strongly suggest a resource-based planning (Brochu 2003, 18). This approach had been reinforced by the result of market research that the visitors are strongly interested in what makes the place special (c.f. no.1). The core of the nature reserve – one of the oldest in Germany – is the summit area being a small but scientifically important “island” of sub-alpine conditions. This entails a flora and fauna that is very rare not only in the Black Forest but almost all over Germany. However these on-site resources have to compete with the distant views. The view to the Rhine plain and the Vosges Mountains gives evidence of a highly significant geological structure: the Upper Rhine Rift Valley. The Black Forest and the Vosges are still slowly drifting apart. There are very rare places in the world that show so spectacularly how the earth’s crust has broken – provided the air is not too misty.

4

Figure 3: View from the Belchen summit trail to the distant Vosges Mountains beyond the wide Upper Rhine Rift Valley. The two mountain ranges are still moving in opposite directions. It is almost impossible not to mention this outstanding geological structure while interpreting the Belchen summit – at least for the author of this paper. (Photo Lehnes 1999)

4. Although there have been significant financial contributions by the EU’s Community Initiative LEADER II, the Naturpark Südschwarzwald and the Conservation Agency, the restricted budgets of the local communities were a limiting factor (c.f. budget-based planning approach Brochu 2003, 18). There was no possibility to allocate substantial permanent budgets for maintaining the interpretive facilities. Therefore costly interactive exhibits or audio devices were not affordable. The decision to use booklets as main media for the Discovery Trails project had to be questioned for the Belchen summit trail. The Nature Conservation Agency wished to reach those visitors who are not ready to pay for a booklet, too. Furthermore the booklets were supposed to be easily available for purchase for those tourists who stay for some days in the project area. The majority of visitors to the Belchen summit though are day trippers and tourists who stay at places beyond the project area. Considering the maintenance costs the planning team decided to use panels as additional medium on the Belchen – despite the old fashioned reputation of these traditional media, and despite the widespread opinion among German environmental

5 educators panels would not work and would be ignored by the great majority of visitors. However the planner was convinced that seriously applying the principles and recommendations for good practice in interpretation as published by Ham (1992), Serrel (1996), Trapp et al. (1994) and others can enhance the effectiveness of panel trails significantly. During the further planning process this complex situation at the Belchen summit forced to cope with what was later realised and called the “interpreter’s dilemma”.

3 Interpreter’s dilemma on the Belchen summit Among the many quality criteria and recommendations for good practice several tended to contradict each other in the case of the Belchen trail (c.f. Figure 4).

Highlight the Confine to one Theme! special Reveal the hidden features! background stories!

Focus on concrete Never sensual too much! experiences!

Enhance awareness for Answer the conservation! obvious questions!

Lehnes 2000 (revised)

Figure 4: Interpreter’s Dilemma while working on the plan for a self-guided trail on the Belchen.

Probably most interpreters are familiar with similar situations. With the project’s purpose and the target groups in mind experienced planners are able to decide rather quickly which criteria should be prioritised. Sometimes such decisions can be made rather intuitively and semi-consciously, which is not necessarily a bad thing. However, the experts’ excursion to the Belchen showed the need for a comprehensible reasoning.

6 3.1 “Special features” versus “concrete sensual experience” The highlights of fauna and flora are glacial relics that are common in the Alps in sub- alpine meadows but very rare in the Black Forest: e.g. a special species of dandelion (Leontodon helveticus), a special bluebell (Campanula scheuchzeri), the Alpine mountain grasshopper (Miramella alpine). The problem with those species: The grasshopper is very tiny and visitors usually don’t see them. At some places along the trail the visitors can quite easily find the flowers; But only during the two months while they are blossoming. The special wildlife of the Belchen summit is invisible for most visitors. Highlighting what makes the Belchen summit special was considered top priority by the planner because of the results of the preliminary investigations. However, the criterion to focus interpretation on phenomena that can be perceived by the visitors (Ludwig 2003) was a strong argument against interpreting these species. There was no solution to meet both criteria ideally. Three stops out of nine deal with the rare and often invisible species. Mentioning their habitats at least allowed connecting the theme of the respective panel with what is visible at that place. It was an open question how the visitors would judge these stops.

Figure 5: The two summit panels show sections of the Alpine panorama. Visitors are encouraged to test, how far they can see. And the interpretation provides an answer, why most visitors are not able to experience the full panorama.

The spectacular distant views along the Belchen summit trail, meet both criteria: highlighting a special feature and experiencing an impressing phenomenon. – But this

7 experience depends on the weather conditions. To see the Alps requires a visibility of at least 140 km. This rarely happens during the summer months. Even the Vosges Mountains are 70 km away. However the interpretive planner assumed that many people visit the Belchen because of its famous views. Therefore they had to be treated. In order to reduce disappointments and to stimulate interaction, the Alpine panorama is connected with the entertaining task of finding out how far one is able to see at the moment. For the great majority of visitors these panels only reveal, what could potentially be sensually experienced – provided one was very lucky.

3.2 “Background stories” versus “never too much” To appreciate the significance of a feature, visitors need an understanding of what makes it special. This understanding usually is not trivial but requires some background knowledge. Concerning the Upper Rhine Rift Valley one has to understand that whole mountain ranges are slowly moving and masses of rock have disappeared in the vast gap. But mere cognitive understanding is not enough; it should be provided in a manner that provokes even more than thought and discussion (Carter 1997, 6) but emotions and feeling, too, e.g. by connecting it with the perception of individuals or metaphors that relate to the visitors’ experience. Furthermore, when one starts telling a story with a complex background, new questions will arise that require answers. Otherwise people remain unsatisfied. In other cases just stating that several species are very rare quickly becomes boring. In order to relate people emotionally with a plant or wildlife some special capabilities, characteristics or entertaining anecdotes add colour to the mere facts. All these considerations show a tendency that entertaining interpretation aiming to reveal what’s beyond the surface tends to longer texts and/or more complex illustrations. However, people on leisure are commonly supposed to refuse staying in front of an outdoor panel reading long stories. Sam Ham recommended generally not using more than 50 to 60 words on a panel; and 65 words should rarely be exceeded, if the interpreter wants anyone to read it (Ham 1992, 327). In the case of the Belchen trail the interpreter needed many more than these 65 words to create a “Sense of Belchen Summit” in an entertaining way that reveals its significance. Considering that Central Europeans are probably more used to reading than the average Americans and that the readiness to read increases with more provoking and interesting texts a maximum of 200 words per panel was fixed. The average of all panels is about 170 words. On the other hand the visitors were not expected to read the entire story at each stop. The texts have been organised in main paragraphs, additional paragraphs and captions giving the reader the choice which

8 parts seem interesting. Concerning this question of optimal text length, the Belchen trail again served as a big field experiment with an open result.

3.3 “Only one theme” versus “conservation message” and “obvious questions” Confining the interpretation strictly to one overriding theme was an important aim of the Discovery Trails project from the scientific point of view. The arguments for focussing on one central idea (c.f. Ham 1992) are convincing – e.g. not overwhelming the visitors with unrelated facts, or more easily memorable messages. Furthermore, dividing one overriding theme into smaller pieces for each stop could have been the ideal solution to the above explained conflict between keeping the texts as short as possible and revealing the interesting and entertaining backgrounds. Nevertheless the project team did not find the one convincing theme that could cover all the different “must”-messages which have been mentioned previously (chapter 2): - The Belchen summit is an important island of sub-alpine conditions where wildlife with rare glacial relics survived. - The Belchen summit is part of the shoulder of the Upper Rhine Rift Valley which is still active. - This nature reserve is not wilderness but a cultural landscape that needs care. - The most urging questions for the majority of visitors are like: Is this distant mountain the famous Eiger? Are those mountains the Vosges etc.

Figure 6: The desire to recognise the highest elevation of the Black Forest is combined with the surprising glacial history of the area. The panel shows a photo reconstruction of the Wiese glacier at the peak of the Ice age when is has been bigger than the longest Alpine glacier is today (Photos by Lehnes 2003 and 2000).

9 An easy solution would have been a weak theme-statement like: “The Belchen summit is a very interesting place”. However, such an abstract statement applies almost everywhere and virtually doesn’t say anything. On the other hand, the planner did not want to skip the thematic approach totally. The – not really satisfying – solution was a central idea that includes different concrete aspects and relates only to seven of nine stops: “The Belchen summit has a variety of different relationships to the Alps: • its sub-alpine wildlife and a typical timberline; • the raven (Corvus corax)) that had been extinct almost all over Germany, survived in its Alpine refuge and returned from there to the Belchen; • the great panoramic view to the Alps; • erosion problems similar to some Alpine summits; • a glacial history comparable with today’s biggest Alpine glaciers.” Although there is a geological relationship between the Upper Rhine Rift Valley and the Alpine uplift this topic was considered far too complex for this trail; and the conservation agency’s biotope-management is not related to the Alps at all. These experiences revealed some of the difficulties, which may occur when applying the thematic approach together with other criteria for good practice. Practice requires decisions – sometimes under time pressure. The planner had to accept some shortcomings in order to meet other criteria which seemed more important for the overall-success. After having decided the priorities the next step had been trying to optimise the lower priority criteria within the given framework. But what do the visitors think about the interpreter’s dilemma and the chosen solutions?

4 The visitors’ opinions Between early autumn 2001 and late spring 2002 first surveys have been undertaken on the Belchen in order to explore the visitors’ opinions on the conflicting criteria for good interpretation. These surveys were carried out in the context of the Transinterpret project (c.f. Lehnes & Zányi 2004), which aims to develop transferable recommendations and quality standards for Heritage Interpretation as a means for sustainable rural development. Answering the semi-standardised questionnaire took about 15 minutes. The interview partners were selected randomly at the trail-end. 41% of the selected visitors refused giving an interview. The major reasons were being in a hurry for the bus, and impatient children or dogs. In the average these groups certainly are less ready to staying in front of panels and reading the texts. This issue should be taken into account when

10 interpreting the following figures. 300 persons were ready to give an interview. 280 of them did look at least at some panels. Due to a shortage of money the summer season was not represented enough in this sample. Therefore the survey is going to be continued during the summer seasons 2003 and 2004. Thus, the results which are presented in this paper are still preliminary.

4.1 “Special features” versus “concrete sensual experience” One of the weaknesses of the Belchen Discovery trail is certainly that the plants and animals that are interpreted remain virtually invisible for the most time of the year. This shortcoming is also recognised by many visitors.

Are the panels sufficiently related to what can be observed?

no panel 0%

few panels 3%

about half 7%

most panels 54%

all panels 28%

no answer 8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Figure 7: The visitors’ opinions about how many panels are sufficiently related to what can be observed at the stop. About half of the interviews were taken while the Alpine plants that are described on one panel were not flowering (late autumn 2001 and spring 2002).

Only about one quarter think that all panels are sufficiently related to what can be observed. For this group the relation to the visible habitat is probably sufficient. The others would prefer a stronger relation to what can be perceived. However this does not mean that one should never interpret animals and plants that are not visible. The great majority would not agree at all, with such a statement (c.f. Figure 8).

11 "I think animals and plants should be interpreted only if they can be observed!" Do you agree? I agree.. fully 4,3%

quite 4,6%

partly 11,1%

little 12,5%

not at all 66,8%

no answer 0,7%

0,0% 20,0% 40,0% 60,0% 80,0%

Figure 8: Two thirds of the interviewees reject the statement, that one should only interpret those plants and animals that can be observed.

This clear result has been surprising. Two control questions provided a slightly more differentiated picture: • “I think, plants and animals that are not visible should be interpreted, if they are rare and special to the place!” This statement was fully agreed by even 74%. • “I think, plants and animals that are not visible should be interpreted, if they are well known!” – Like the ravens. Still 62% did fully agree. However the affirmation is significantly smaller. Of course these results are influenced by the visitors’ experiences with such panels just a few minutes before. There might be a different outcome to similar questions, if the texts would have been more formal, less entertaining and less focussed on what makes the Belchen summit special. Obviously the best choice is to interpret features that are very special and easily visible and can be experienced with other senses, too. However in practice the conditions are rarely ideal. The results of the enquiry indicate that one should not hesitate presenting those features that make the place special, even if they are invisible. An audience of hikers and walkers, who usually wish to know some background about the places they are visiting, will appreciate such interpretation – at least to some extent.

4.2 Brief texts versus background stories and interesting details? As explained above, the planner had decided to exceed the maximum 65 words recommendation for three times. The reaction of the visitors – the great majority are Germans – has not been predictable at all. 12 Do you consider the amount of texts appropriate?

rather too much text 3%

appropriate 93%

could be more text 4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 9: The great majority of visitors consider the average of 170 words per panel along the Belchen Discovery trail as appropriate.

This unexpected result does not necessarily imply that everybody does really read all the texts. The texts are an offer to the visitors and they can choose what is most interesting. Again it should be stressed that this result is highly depended on to what extend the other quality criteria for interpretive trails are met. It does not justify a single general rule like: “Never exceed 200 words and your visitors will not be overwhelmed” – regardless how boring your story is to the visitors or regardless how hard it is to decipher... However it indicates that within the comprehensive Transinterpret standards framework, the recommendation not to exceed 200 words on outdoor panels is on the secure side – for a German audience.

4.3 The thematic focus and unanswered obvious questions The thematic approach to heritage interpretation is not yet common in Germany and the visitors do not know the distinction between the notions of ‘topic’ and ‘theme’ which has developed in professional interpretation (c.f. Ham 1992). Therefore the term ‘theme’ should be taken synonymous to ‘topic’ when reading the results of the Belchen Trail survey. As described above it was not possible to find a convincing overriding theme that covers all stops, or to delete those stops that did not fit in the theme respectively. This shortcoming from the perspective of the thematic approach is partly reflected by the answers: • 14 % did not recognise any theme (topic) at all; • 27 % recognised several themes; • Only 4 % affirmed the statement that there was one theme that covered most panels, which corresponded the planners own opinion;

13 • 45 % identified one theme for all panels. However, these persons did recognise a variety of topics: “Nature”, “the Belchen”, “development of the nature and man’s influence on it”; “the landscape and glaciations”; “conservation”… The panels do not communicate the intended specific theme “the Belchen has several different relations with the Alps”; and the relation to the Alps had been mentioned by only six persons (2 %). The attempt to optimise a subordinate thematic red thread within the given limitations obviously failed. On the other hand, the majority of the Belchen visitors do not really miss a stronger focus on a central theme or topic respectively.

Which statements concerning themes do the visitors agree with?

"I like it, when a trail focuses on one theme!" "I like it, when a trail covers several different themes!"

35% 32% 30% 29%

25% 25% 23% 22% 22% 20% 20% 16% 15%

10% 7% 5% 5%

0% % of visitors, who do agree to the above statements...... not at all ...a little ...partly ...quite ...fully

Figure 10: The Belchen visitors’ opinion on whether a trail should focus on one theme or present several different themes.

The questions whether interpretive trails generally should focus on one theme or whether they should cover several different themes, showed scattered opinions. There is even an unexpected tendency to prefer a variety of different topics. But again the visitors’ fresh experiences at the Belchen trail must be taken into account. Because of its shortcomings in respect of the thematic approach, the interviewees could not experience the benefits of a thematically coherent interpretation – and presumably they rarely came in contact with good examples. Therefore this

14 result does not necessarily mean that thematic interpretation would not be appreciated by the majority. On the other hand the preference for different topics could indicate a desire for variety which adds to entertainment. In this respect there might appear another potential contradiction among quality criteria. Another reason might be the desire to get an overview on all the different characteristics that make the place special – instead of focusing on one specific theme. A valid answer to this question will require further research. Does the Discovery Trail answer the obvious questions that appear in the visitors’ minds? 81 % of the interviewees did not miss answers to questions that appeared spontaneously. Only 16 % reported such questions which were not answered by the panels. Most of them had to do with the names of summits and villages that can be seen from along the trail. Some people wanted more in depth interpretation on the wildlife or the former glaciations.

Unanswered Questions

Did questions appear that are not 16% answered?

Should they be treated along the path? 11%

Even if one of the existing panels had to 3% be deleted

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% % answering with "yes" (n=280)

Figure 11: Unanswered questions that appeared to the Belchen Discovery trail visitors.

Sometimes these spontaneous questions might appear from individual background knowledge, and can be rather specific and of mainly personal interest. Therefore the interviewees were asked whether or not their unanswered questions (if there had been any) should have been treated along the trail. Three quarter answered with “yes”. However, this picture changes if these interviewees are confronted with the alternative that one of the existing panels would have to be replaced in order to treat the additional topic. Only every fourth of those remaining persons who wished their open questions being integrated in the interpretation, would have agreed to such a replacement. Thus, only 3 % of all visitors wished more information on other topics so urgently that they would agree to replace an existing panel by a new panel.

15 In the case of contradicting quality criteria the interpretive planners have to put up with weaknesses – besides those shortcomings that are due to a lack of time, a lack of know-how and other reasons. What finally counts however is to what extent the project reaches its goals.

4.4 The overall satisfaction The priority goal for the Belchenland Discovery Trails was enhancing the attractiveness of sustainable tourism by professional interpretive provision. Therefore the satisfaction of the visitors is an important criterion for success – besides all more specific questions that should provide some insight into the contribution of different factors for that success. As mouth to mouth propaganda is the most important advertising of the tourism destination, the visitors have been asked whether or not they would recommend the Belchen trail to others.

Would you recommend this trail?

no 2%

partly 3%

yes 92%

I don' know 3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 12: The visitors’ statements whether or not they would recommend the Belchen Discovery Trail (n=280).

Although the more specific questions revealed that the visitors are well aware of several shortcomings, the great majority states that they would recommend the Discovery Trail. Another integrative indicator is the amount of text which visitors actually did read. With her master thesis Helga Wittib undertook surveys at two interpretive trails on different Black Forest summits: the Belchen trail again and the Schauinsland trail (Wittib 2002). Both interpretive trails are the same age – opened in 1999 – and offer panels along the most frequented routes from the car park to the nearby summit and back. Even the contents of the two trails are comparable to some extent. Although the Schauinsland trail is much longer, the great majority of visitors only use the upper part in the summit area (with seven panels). 16

Figure 13: The “Landscape in the West” panel at the Schauinsland summit explaining the Upper Rhine Rift Valley (Photo Lehnes 2003). The headings and the main text comprise 324 words.

The major difference is that planning the Belchen trail has been based on the know- how of Heritage Interpretation as developed in America and Britain, while the project team of the Schauinsland trail did not have access to this approach. Therefore an assessment of the Belchen and the Schauinsland trails against the Transinterpret quality criteria showed a significant difference. The Belchen trail achieved 87 % of the Transinterpret index, which summarises the extent to which the Transinterpret quality criteria are met. This good result was not surprising, because the planner of the Belchenland Discovery trails has developed this assessment index, too (c.f. Lehnes & Zányi 2004). The first seven stops of the Schauinsland trail reached 56 %. Concerning text length for example, most panels did not fully meet the maximum 200 words criterion: The amounts of text vary between 174 and 465 words per panel. The objective of the comparative study was finding out, to what extent this significant difference would be reflected by the visitors’ readiness to reading the panels. Wittib interviewed 150 persons at each trail end, asking which panels they had noticed. For each noticed panel she asked whether the interviewees read the texts completely, or selected sections, or only the heading, or nothing at all.

17 Schauinsland trail: Visitors having read the panels completely

Panel topics Pasture beeches 34%

Mountain forest 25%

Landscape in the East 27%

Landscape in the North 28%

Landscape in the West 29%

Plants of pastures 18%

The rocks 17%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

The Belchen trail: Visitors having read the panels completely Panel topics Alpine Plants 56%

Ravens 65%

Timber line 60%

Erosion 69%

Upper Rhine Rfit Valley 62%

View to the Alps 62%

Alpine Animals 62%

Glaciation 66%

Conservation 59%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 14: Visitors of the Schauinsland trail and the Belchen trail, who stated that they have read the entire text. 100 % corresponds with all visitors who have noticed the respective panel (which is between 46 and 109 at the Schauinsland and between 97 and 118 at the Belchen panels). Data collected by Helga Wittib in 2002.

Figure 14 gives some evidence on the visitors’ different readiness to read the panels of the Belchen and the Schauinsland trails. The average percentage of interviewees who read the entire texts at the Belchen panels is 62 %; the average at the Schauinsland is 26 %. On the other hand on the Schauinsland an average of 38 % visitors said they did

18 only read the title or nothing at all at the respective stop. At the Belchen the respective percentage of non-readers is 12 %. Comparing these figures clearly indicates that, meeting the quality criteria for Heritage Interpretation enhances the success to a large extent. However, these data should not be taken as valid in absolute figures. The question Wittib posed “At which panels did you read the texts completely; at which only some sections, just the heading, or nothing at all?” could have caused some interviewees be reluctant admitting that they did not read “enough”. If this was the case a tendency not to give the true answer would be stronger at the Schauinsland trail because a higher percentage would have had to admit that they read only little or nothing. Therefore an even higher difference in the results could be expected. In order to get more valid data this comparative survey is currently repeated. A new introduction to this crucial question states that “experience shows that only few visitors read all the texts of educational trails (…) Are there panels where you read more than just the heading?…” The results are expected in late 2004.

5 First conclusions and outlook The studies in the Southern Black Forest proved that panels as a means for interpretation are still important and can be quite successful. The opinion of some environmental educators that panels generally do not work because people never read them is false. Of course the success of interpretive panels depends on their quality – quality defined as the ability to meet the customers’ expectations and needs. And an interpretive planner always has to have two kinds of customers in mind: the visitors and the organisations that run the interpretation project. To some extent quality can be ensured by a careful planning which takes systematically into account the know-how and the rich experience which is gathered in the approach of Heritage Interpretation. This means satisfying interpretation needs some time commitment; it also needs to realise the capabilities and limitations of a project team with is formed by in-house staff or volunteers, and to buy in expertise where necessary. The quality of existing interpretative facilities varies largely. Few examples of good practice are surrounded by lots of unprofessional work and sometimes very poor quality that is much more likely to annoy visitors than to create enthusiasm. Nevertheless sites with poor interpretation are still promoted by quite some tourism organisations. In this situation the tourists and other visitors respectively do not know in advance whether or not an interpretive facility is worth visiting. An international label based on quality standards might help sites to be more easily distinguished by foreign visitors;

19 and common quality standards should also help planning teams avoiding shortcomings that reduce the success of the investments. However by affirming the need for quality standards one needs to find solutions for some obvious problems. Interpretation goes beyond pure science – it implies the art of writing and speaking, a skill in the presentation of ideas (Tilden 1977, 31). Therefore any standards must be flexible enough not to exterminate creativity. Furthermore a quality system must be flexible enough to allow development according to new findings, to different target groups, and to new social developments. This paper dealt with the experience that quality criteria can contradict each other. There is no general solution to such conflicts. Depending on the priority objectives of the project the one or the other quality standard can be more important for the success. In the Belchen example restricting the contents to only one theme would have been much more important if the interpretation in the first place would have aimed to convey a distinctive message. Instead focussing on the variety of special features on this summit was considered more important, because the self-guided trail should serve the tourists’ desire to learn what makes the place special. Clear priorities are necessary in order to deal with such internal conflicts. Finding and testing solutions for international standards that are flexible enough to be adapted to individual projects is one of the challenges of the Transinterpret project. Documentation of intrinsic conflicts and of the reasoning why some criteria are considered less important than others in a given situation will be required. A transparent quality system that allows flexibility in assessing different interpretive facilities with different purposes is a precondition for an international quality label. The other lesson learnt is, that visitors do appreciate interpretation despite there are some shortcomings. Though, a serious effort to optimise the violated criteria as far as possible seems to be crucial.

6 References Brochu, Lisa (2003): Interpretive Planning. The 5-M Model for Successful Planning Projects. interpPress, Fort Collins. Carter James (ed.) (1997): A Sense of Place. An Interpretive Planning Handbook. Published by Tourism and Environment Initiative, Inverness. Trapp, Suzanne; Gross Micheal; Zimmermann Ron (²1994): Signs, Trails, and Wayside Exhibits. Interpreter’s Handbook series. UW-SP Foundation Press, Stevens Point. Ham, Sam. (1992): Environmental Interpretation. A Practical Guide for People with Big Ideas and Small Budgets. North American Press, Golden, Colorado.

20 Lehnes, Patrick (1997): Zur touristischen Nachfrage nach Interpretation der Landschaft - Möglichkeiten zur Umweltbildung en passant? Arbeitshilfen für Erwachsenenbildung, H. 4/97. pp 35-39. Lehnes, Patrick & Rainer Glawion (2000): Landschaftsinterpretation - ein Ansatz zur Aufbereitung regionalgeographischer Erkenntnisse für den Tourismus. In: Aktuelle Beiträge zur angewandten Physischen Geographie der Tropen, Subtropen und der Regio TriRhena - Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Prof. Dr. Rüdiger Mäckel. = Freiburger Geographische Hefte, H. 60, Freiburg. pp. 313- 326. Ludwig, Thorsten (2003): Das Konzept der Naturinterpretation. Oder: wie sich die Sprache der Phänomene in die Sprache der Menschen übersetzen lässt. Natur erleben H. 4/2003, pp 74-77. Serrel, Beverly (1996): Exhibit Labels. An Interpretive Approach. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, London, New Delhi. Tilden, Freeman (³1977): Interpreting our Heritage. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Wittib, Helga (2002): Entdeckungspfade und ihr Erfolg bei Besuchern. Ein Vergleich des Belchenpfades mit dem Erzkasten Rundweg auf dem Schauinsland. Unveröffentlichte wissenschaftliche Arbeit für das Höhere Lehramt an Gymnasien; betreut durch Prof. Dr. Jörg Stadelbauer, Institut für Kulturgeographie, Universität Freiburg.

------This paper is published as: Lehnes, Patrick (2004): The interpreter's dilemma - and what visitors think of it. Regionale Identität, Tourismus und Landschaftsinterpretation: Eine natürliche Symbiose? = ZELT Forum - Göttinger Schriften zu Landschaftsinterpretation und Tourismus 1: pp 41-61

21