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.

The second principle of interpretive planning is simple – just pay attention. To everything. It sounds easy enough, doesn’t it? Yet I see simple mistakes made by planners and designers every place I go. Things that would have been easy to get right if they had been paying attention to details during the process. I recently saw (in a highly touted museum in our nation’s capital) an interpretive exhibit (flat wall panel) mounted squarely behind an interior door that apparently stays open 90% of the time, so that the door covers about 2/3 of the sign. Placement matters and it’s a big part of planning. Had the staff pencil-tested that floor plan, they could have foreseen the need for the door to be open and put that panel in another location. That same museum, and many others, also put interpretive panels leading down a staircase. I don’t know about you, but when I go down a staircase, I have to pay attention to the stairs, not the handwriting on the wall. In my view, putting anything that requires focused attention on a staircase wall is not only an accident waiting to happen, it’s simply a waste of money.

Let’s say you were planning a great dinner party at your house. You’d probably clean up some of those things that might put people off if they didn’t already know you well – the pile of trash by the driveway, the cat box odor, that pesky hall tree that actually blocks the door as you try to get in. Planning an interpretive site is no different.

As you begin to plan an interpretive experience, think about how it will be experienced. Is there ambient sound that might impact the quality of someone’s visit (a factory, airport, or busy highway right next door)? Are you accidentally planning to create noise pollution by recommending a plethora of unshielded audio devices in an exhibit gallery or music on the grounds that may not be appropriate?

Think about invasive odors – in some cases, the odor may be part of the story if you’re interpreting a sewage treatment plant or a big cat exhibit at the zoo, and if so, use it to your advantage. But if the odor is coming from something distasteful, get it cleaned up or think about how you work around it so that it doesn’t put off your guests.

The same approach can be taken with visual distractions. Using a screen of vegetation or a wall of some sort can help keep your visitors focused on what you want them focused on instead of the neighboring junkyard or your air conditioning system. If you choose to screen something, use a screen that matches your site’s theme. The Roger Williams Park Zoo turned a plain wooden wall into a painted mural of bright African textile design to match their theme of how the land, people, and animals are interwoven to create the rich fabric of Africa. In so doing, they reinforce the theme of the exhibit area, tie into some sales items, and brighten up the walkway in a positive way.

As you conduct your first site investigations during the planning process, look at wear patterns on existing pathways and exhibits. You can tell a lot about what interests visitors by where they go and what they touch most often. This can give you good background information for the choices you’ll be making. Notice whether there are lines forming at the restrooms. You may think restrooms have little or nothing to do with the interpretation at the site, but they really do. Interpretive planning isn’t just about the conveying the message, it’s about blending that message seamlessly into an entire experience so that the facilities, landscape, and interpretive media are indistinguishable from each other.

So pay attention as you plan. Look, listen, smell, touch . . . use all your senses to help you create the best experience possible for visitors so that your message comes across loud and clear. Remember that if you’re not delivering your message, you probably aren’t working helping to accomplish your mission.