As Good as the Real Thing? A Comparative Study of Interpretive Podcasts and Traditional Ranger Talks

Abstract

This study compared the effectiveness of three interpretive formats: online podcasts, the same podcasts viewed at a park's visitor center (VC), and traditional ranger talks. Programs covered eight different topics but were all presented by the same interpreter. After viewing a program, visitors completed surveys assessing their emotional and intellectual responses and feelings of stewardship. Responses from talk participants were slightly stronger than those of both online podcast and VC podcast viewers for most indicators, especially smiles and intent to change behavior based on program content ( p ≤ .01). Online podcast responses were stronger than VC podcast responses, particularly for viewers’ enjoyment, smiles, and level of personal interest ( p ≤ .01). Podcasts viewed in the VC generated the weakest overall responses. Many of the differences between online podcast and ranger talk responses, though statistically significant, were not practically significant. These results provide initial empirical evidence to justify parks’ increasing investment in new media interpretation.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 17 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.