Applied Interpretation

As part of a research commitment to Haleakala National Monument (located on the Hawaiian Islands), one of the assessment tasks was to observe the summit area to gather information on visitor patterns. The summit of the Volcano is the primary stopping point for the Park and hence receives the most visitation of any area on the mountain. A tale of two interpretive approaches emerged from my work – a good one and a bad one.

Interpreter "waiting" for her audience

The bad news first – one of the staples of interpretation of Haleakala is to offer a talk in an observatory that is located on a corner of the summit. The staff was frustrated with the lack of visitors actually attending these scheduled programs. So one of my tasks was to learn why the paucity in participants. Observations of the interpreter’s on site “marketing” of the program uncovered an influential reason for the lack of attendance. Fifteen minutes prior to the presentation, the ranger (who would have to drive from the visitor center to the summit parking lot) would get out of her car and walk directly to the observatory and wait diligently in the overlook for participants. Meanwhile, the summit area itself would typically have fifty to a hundred people at any given time exploring the area and the many spectacular views. In other words, the interpreter assumed people would come to her while, in reality, they were exploring the summit ridge taking in sights at their own pace. Hence, the ranger would manage to catch a handful of listeners while the majority was roaming on their own.

The "camo guy" (on the left) beginning to draw in an audience

Now the good news – sort of – one of the aspects of this Park that differentiates it from many others is the variety of privately run tour guides / quasi-interpreters who operate small businesses that will take vacationers from the beach resorts to the Volcano. One such operation – and a bit on the rustic side at best – had the answer to the Park’s observatory visitation dilemma. This man’s strategy was to let off his van load of clients and then walk to the iconic plant species of the park – the Silversword plant. Wearing a camouflage jacket, jeans, and smoking a cigarette, he immediately began to approach people and ask if they knew anything about the plant they were looking at. Within minutes his burly voice and animated style attracted 20 -30 people to the plant where he proceeded to give a “program” on the plant and the history of its use – all the while passing out his business card to drum up more paying customers for his all day excursions!

This scenario is not to suggest that Park staff change their uniforms and begin to smoke. But it does highlight the potential success of aggressive, one on one interpretation that can turn into an all out program. It also points out an important factor to successful “roving”. The individual must WANT to talk with people and, in fact, seek them out. Unfortunately, many interpreters observed through our research studies are quite content to plan a program, go to the program site and then give the program. Any disruptions from this pattern would just be considered an inconvenience.