Interpretive Planning

I’m often baffled by interpretive sites such as museums, zoos, botanical gardens, parks, and nature centers, that operate from a deep-seated belief that what they do is completely unique and so only a museum planner can plan museums, and a zoo planner zoos, etc. The reality is that there are definitely design issues that are unique to these facilities – for example, live animal exhibits in nature centers and zoos or “living” museums like the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, require certain critical factors not found in typical park visitor centers or artifact-laden museums). But sound principles of planning transcend the type of facility. Terminology can easily be changed to fit the situation – a “site” can refer to a building, or a geographic land mass. “Resource” may mean the collection at a museum or the physical or cultural features of a landscape. Terms are interchangeable, but skill sets are not.

And therein lies one of the biggest problems I’ve seen associated with planning projects – the lack of distinction between planning and design. Generally speaking, planners are not designers and conversely, designers are not planners. Having said that, some people have both skill sets and can take a project through planning and design phases successfully. Others should stick to what they are good at, and recognize that these skill sets are not interchangeable. The best designers will know when a plan has not been well thought out and may even ask to bring in a planner to help ensure that best practices are followed so that everyone ends up satisfied.

Planning helps determine the most appropriate media to communicate a specific message to a targeted audience  in support of the agency’s mission, goals, and objectives. Design helps create the media once good planning has determined what the most appropriate media will be. That may be a subtle distinction for some, but have you ever worked with someone who decides what the solution needs to be before fully identifying the problem? Usually, the problem is not “we need a trail.” The problem might be “we need to have people interact appropriately with the forest environment.” A trail with interpretive signs may be the best approach, but if the primary users of this forest are equestrians, interpretive signs are not going to fill the bill. In fact, they create a trail hazard for horses and riders and cannot reasonably be posted at a height that would be necessary for ease of reading by equestrians.

Planning makes you step back and check yourself – are you asking the right questions without assuming you already know the answers? Good planning saves time and money. I was recently asked to work on a plan by someone who assumed that writing a plan simply meant listing as much media as you could fit on the page and into the site. In fact, at this particular site, less is more and there is little reason to put a lot of media on the ground, given the purpose of the site and the interests of the audience. Going through a planning process and matching the needs of the visitors with the needs of the agency and the physical features of the site and resource clearly pointed out some significant cost-saving measures.

So going back to the original question – is museum planning different than zoo planning? Well, it depends, to a certain extent. According to the fourth principle of interpretive planning, every project is unique so every process will be different. But that doesn’t mean that each venue type needs a completely different approach to planning in general. The 5-Ms still work, whether you’re looking at a museum, a nature center, a botanical garden, a zoo or a commercial theme park. Learn to ask the right questions and your plan is halfway done. The other half, of course, is coming up with the answers to those questions. Then, and only then, are you ready to start designing the media called for in the plan.

For all my regular readers – so sorry I’ve let you down this past month. Too much on my plate and enough said about that. But I’m back and having some thoughts about planning again, so I promise to be more consistent and getting back to a regular Wednesday update or perhaps even two a week. For new readers, you can usually find tips for improving your planning process or your communication with clients or consultants on this blog. I’m also happy to look at specific challenges you might be facing (related to interpretive planning) and help you think through your options on how to handle the situation.

I was recently in Australia for the NAI International Conference followed by a week of vacation time. It was my first time there and I’m always interested in seeing how interpretation is generally approached in another country. Like interpretation in the US, there is no single approach, but there do seem to be some unique traits common to most of the places I visited while there.

Sign at Mission Beach trail

One of the things I noticed was an attempt to recognize the native Aboriginal culture at many sites. Australia has an interesting history, and like most countries, there are parts of that history that some people would probably prefer not be discussed. But at many sites, the interpretive signs and exhibits include reference to the traditional inhabitants of the land or have sign/exhibit titles and names of places and animals translated to the native language. I thought this was an interesting approach, but I’m not sure it went far enough. In my view, the Aboriginal story is a complex one, much like the Native American story in the US, and it deserves to be compellingly and holistically told, preferably by those who have a deep affinity for or whose genetic roots are part of that culture. I’d be curious to know how much Aboriginal involvement is actually cultivated in the interpretive planning process for governmental and privately owned sites.

Paver design in entry walkway to Tjapukai Cultural Centre

Traditional dance and didgeridoo

One of the many sites I visited was the Tjapukai Cultural Centre just north of Cairns. I thought it was a wonderful experience and one of my favorite of the trip. The key word there is “experience.” They had shows, signs, exhibits, a great gift shop, and opportunities for audience participation (I learned, sort of, how to throw a boomerang, among other things). This was a place to meet and talk with people who are willing to share both historical and modern perspectives on their culture. I would love to know more about the interpretive planning process for this site – all I can say is that whoever did it, did a good job with it. Would I have done some things differently? Possibly – there’s always room for improvement. But overall, I thought the place was brilliant and would highly recommend it to anyone looking for a good example of how to put together a great visitor experience.

Learning to throw a boomerang - note the public is safely encaged

The sad part, though, is that I found little to no promotion of the place among hotel concierge desks, tour company guides (if the place wasn’t on the tour you were on), or even just regular local people. In one case, our attention was intentionally diverted away from this facility by a bus driver. You almost had to ask specifically for information about it rather than it being routinely offered as a unique area experience. I had to wonder how much of that was related to competitors who didn’t offer the same quality level being concerned about the competition and how much of it was just out and out prejudice against an operation run by the native culture. Either way, the lesson is a hard one – all the good planning in the world won’t help you if people don’t know about your site. Promotional efforts and anything that might get in the way of that promotion must be considered as part of the planning process.

I was recently sent an example of mission, vision, and goals (aims) from an organization for a quick makeover. As I read through them, however, I felt like they were pretty solid as they were. So I’m sharing them here as an example of something that seems to work well without a lot more tweaking.

Point being that my dad was right – if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Now the caveat is that I don’t personally have knowledge of the operations of this site, so it is possible that the stated mission/goals don’t fully represent what is actually taking place (in which case, maybe it is time to reflect more thoughtfully on these pieces).

Here’s how they were submitted to me. Again, the name of the organization has been deleted.

MISSION
XXX  is dedicated to the conservation of wildlife and other natural resources.

VISION
Living in balance with nature.

Aims (GOALS)

In pursuit of this vision we aim to:

• Conserve species and their habitats, locally and globally.

• Further understanding and inspire care for the natural world.

• Share our knowledge including results from scientific studies.

• Understand our impacts and improve our environmental performance.

• Invest in individuals and communities.

From here, I would begin to strategize specific objectives in a logic model format that would help me assess whether my site is actually accomplishing the goals that support its mission. I might find that the objectives are where I make a stronger tie to the mission statement for some of these goals such as the one that suggests we “invest in individuals and communities.”

But let’s just say that we wanted to tweak this just a bit to better communicate with our constituents. It may be just a matter of looking at the goals and identifying that one of them appears to be somewhat redundant with the mission. So I might refine this to look like this:

MISSION
XXX  inspires stewardship of our natural world.

VISION
Living in balance with nature.

Aims (GOALS)

In pursuit of this vision our goals are to:

• Conserve species and their habitats, locally and globally.

• Share results from scientific studies.

• Improve the center’s environmental performance.

• Help individuals and communities improve their environmental performance.

These small changes clarify some of the statements and allow a more concise approach. It’s not really saying that the organization is going to do anything differently, but it states what they are doing a little more clearly. Keeping things simple usually helps an organization better communicate what it is doing and that’s really the purpose of having a mission statement.

Please feel free to submit your mission statement for a makeover if you feel your mission misses the mark.

About ten years ago, I visited an “Ocean Center.” It was a modest place with a modest admission price. It consisted of an entry station, a small shop, an outdoor plaza, and one exhibit building devoted to the interpretation of marine mammals. The exhibits were engaging and well-designed and I remembered my experience long after the visit.

I recently had the opportunity to visit the same center. Over the last decade, the facility has expanded. It now includes a large aquarium with tanks large enough to have divers feed the enclosed fish and talk to viewing crowds via an underwater microphone. The plaza area has incorporated several outdoor viewing tanks and the store is about three times as large as it once was. A full restaurant with an ocean view has been added, along with a smaller outdoor cafe and snack stand. The price has expanded also – a one-day ticket is now $25, substantially more than it was ten years ago, even accounting for inflation. New “interactive” exhibits (pushbuttons, flappers and crankers) have been added to the original exhibit building.

Have all these improvements improved the experience? Unfortunately, I would have to answer no. The new exhibits are far less engaging and although I always enjoy a good aquarium, the design of this one is challenging – the signs are too wordy and the lighting is so dim that nothing except the tanks can be seen clearly so the interpretive media accompanying the tanks is useless. There’s definitely more to see now, but the overall experience is no longer something I would recommend to others.

I’ve watched this phenomenon of growth with a simultaneous decline of experience at a number of places over the years, and while there may be valid reasons for expansion at some facilities, I often find that the expansion is done for expansion’s sake rather than to accomplish specific objectives.

One nature center I know was once known as one of the top five nature centers in the country based on the quality of its programming. Admittedly, its buildings, housed in and around an old bathhouse, were in sorry shape. But the programs were world-class and the nature center was an active, thriving, valued part of the local community. After new buildings were built, the focus shifted from building great programs to maintenance of the new structures. Interpreters began staying in their office spaces instead of being outside, talking informally with visitors. And the nature center no longer has the community or agency support it once enjoyed.

I’m not suggesting that every facility should avoid growth. But as you plan for expansion, be sure to consider the facility’s current strengths, and think about the potential that growth has for negatively impacting those strengths. It’s not always possible to predict the future, but think seriously about the implications of proposed changes during the planning process and recognize that bigger isn’t always better . . . not if it causes you to lose those things that made your facility or organization successful enough to warrant growth in the first place.

One of my favorite examples of good interpretive planning for an overall site is the National Tea Museum found near Hangzhou, China. Hangzhou is a beautiful city, the home of West Lake (which was copied by the Empress of China for the setting of the Summer Palace in Beijing) and the International Symposium on Aquatic Environment Management in urban and Scenic Areas (which is what drew me to Hangzhou in the first place as a speaker).

Guides help visitors understand how sewage becomes this beautiful waterscape used as a public park.

The entire city has been planned thematically around the idea that water quality influences the quality of life. It’s a completely charming landscape, filled with water features, and even the sewage treatment plant has been developed into a city park where the treatment of water is interpreted to the public.

The National Tea Museum was designed by its director, a landscape architect without formal training in interpretation. Yet he has managed to plan a complete experience that conveys a central theme. It’s a perfect blend of architecture, landscape architecture, and message elements (interpretive media) that are balanced, with each supporting the others, so that the message is obvious even when it’s not overtly stated.

When I first entered the museum and commented on the stunning water feature that trails from the parking area to the museum doors and throughout the site, and the use of water spilling over the tea symbol as the major visual element at the entry door, his response was simple: without water, there is no tea.

National Tea Museum, Hangzhou China

This was clearly the central theme of the site and it was reflected through the exhibits, through the tea ceremony program embedded within the exhibit hall, the grounds, and the sales shop. It was a great example of a holistic approach to visitor experience design that left a clear message in the minds and hearts of visitors. Furthermore, it ties in with the overall theme of the city. I highly recommend visiting this place if you ever find yourself in the neighborhood. From a planning perspective, it’s a wonderful learning opportunity and from a visitor perspective, it’s great fun and highly educational.

Note how the architectural lines of the amphitheatre reflect the terraces of tea bushes behind.

The glass ceiling keeps visitors connected to water while still protecting them during frequent rains.

Exhibits include panels, interactives, and programmatic elements. Here an interpreter explains the tea ceremony.

Tea is packaged for sale in the gift shop in bags or tins, helping to extend the experience beyond the museum.