1. Forrest, J. (2006). Evaluation of effectiveness of interpretation at six visitor centres – main report. In (186 ed., Vol. 1 of 7). Perth: Scottish Natural Heritage. Retrieved from http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/commissioned_reports/ReportNo186_PART1.pdf
It talks about the use of interpretation at visitor centres; where it worked well, how to improve them as well as revisit the main purpose/interpretive hierarchy to ensure there is a robust interpretive framework to guide any future upgrading of interpretation.
2. Littlefair, C. J. (2003). The effectiveness of interpretation in reducing the impacts of visitors in national parks. In Queensland: Griffith University. Retrieved from http://www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/uploads/approved/adt-QGU20050324.085357/public/02Whole.pdf
This study was designed to determine the extent to which an interpretive program reduced the environmental impacts of visitors to national parks.
The interpretive program with the combination of environmental interpretation, role modelling by the guide and verbal appeals from the guide, was always the most effective in reducing shortcutting. Visitors in this interpretive program were always, statistically, less likely to shortcut than visitors on all the other interpretive programs. The programs with only environmental interpretation or no environmental interpretation, were always least effective in reducing shortcutting. The interpretive programs with environment interpretation plus role modelling, or verbal appeals, were always in the middle of these extremes. They were more effective than having neither role modelling or verbal appeals, but less effective than having both.
3. Milliken, J. F. (1990). Perceiving and interpreting environmental change: An...