The past decade has witnessed enormous social, political, and economic change in places such as Africa, Eastern Europe, Asia, and the USSR. These changes have played an important role in focusing attention on the “why” and “what” rather than the “how” of interpretive practice. This shift in emphasis has been expressed in at least five international trends in interpretation: (a) a growing concern with theory in interpretive practice, (b) the rise of ecotourism and consequent changes in the interpretation of environmental issues, (c) reactions to globalization and the tension between homogeneity and uniqueness, (d) the need to interpret emotive issues and contested heritage, and (e) adopting a grassroots approach to interpretive planning. This paper discusses these international trends and focuses on three important areas in which future Australian interpretation research and practice could fruitfully contribute to the development of international “best practice.”
AlcockD. (1991). Education and extension: Management's best strategy.Australian Parks and Recreation, 27 (1), 15–17.
2.
AntericM. (1998). Contested heritage in the former Yugoslavia. In UzzellD. L., & BallantyneR. (Eds.), Contemporary issues in heritage and environmental interpretation: Problems and prospects (pp. 172–184). London: The Stationery Office.
3.
AshworthG. (1998). Heritage, identity and interpreting a European sense of place. In UzzellD. L., & BallantyneR. (Eds.), Contemporary issues in heritage and environmental interpretation: Problems and prospects (pp. 112–32). London: The Stationery Office.
4.
AthertonT. (1994). Ecotourism issues and world trends identification paper. Report to the Queensland Department of Tourism, Sport and Racing.
5.
Australian Education Council. (1991). A national statement on mathematics for Australian schools.Carlton: Australian Education Council and Curriculum Corporation.
6.
BallantyneR. (1995a). Factors affecting student choice of geography as a senior school subject.International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 5 (3), 172–185.
7.
BallantyneR. (1995b). Interpreters’ conceptions of Australian Aboriginal culture and heritage: Implications for interpretive practice.Journal of Environmental Education, 26 (4), 11–17.
8.
BallantyneR. (1997). Understanding environmental and heritage interpretation.Video and workbook package. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.
9.
BallantyneR. (1998a). Problems and prospects for heritage and environmental interpretation in the new millennium: An introduction. In UzzellD. L., & BallantyneR. (Eds.), Contemporary issues in heritage and environmental interpretation: Problems and prospects (pp. 1–10). London: The Stationery Office.
10.
BallantyneR. (1998b). Interpreting “visions”: Addressing environmental education goals through interpretation. In UzzellD. L., & BallantyneR. (Eds.), Contemporary issues in heritage and environmental interpretation: Problems and prospects (pp. 77–97). London: The Stationery Office.
11.
BallantyneR., & BainJ. (1995). Enhancing environmental conceptions: An evaluation of structured controversy learning units.Studies in Higher Education, 20 (3), 293–303.
12.
BallantyneR., ConnellS., & FienJ. (1998a). Factors contributing to intergenerational communication regarding environmental programs: Preliminary research findings.Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 14, 1–10.
13.
BallantyneR., ConnellS., & FienJ. (1998b). Students as catalysts of environmental change: A framework for researching intergenerational influence through environmental education.Environmental Education Research, 4 (3), 285–298.
14.
BallantyneR., FienJ., & PackerJ. (1999). Programme effectiveness in facilitating intergenerational influence in environmental education: Lessons from the field. Manuscript submitted for publication.
15.
BallantyneR., & UzzellD. (1993). Environmental mediation and hot interpretation—A case study of District Six, Cape Town.Journal of Environmental Education, 24 (3), 4–7.
16.
BallantyneR., & UzzellD. (1994). A checklist for the critical evaluation of informal environmental learning experiences.International Journal of Environmental Education and Information, 13 (2), 111–124.
17.
BallantyneR., & WeilerB. (1999). Developing and trialling an ecotour guide training video/workbook package.Regional tourism project proposal. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.
18.
BeckmannE. (1988). Environmental interpretation for education and management in Australian national parks and other protected areas. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of New EnglandArmidale.
BludL. (1990). Sons and daughters: Observations on the way families interact during a museum visit.International Journal of Museum Management and Curator-ship, 9, 257–264.
21.
CialdiniR. B. (1996). Activating and aligning two kinds of norms in persuasive communication.Journal of Interpretation Research, 1 (1), 3–10.
22.
Commonwealth Department of Tourism. (1994). National ecotourism strategy.Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
23.
DierkingL. (1998). Interpretation as a social experience. In UzzellD. L., & BallantyneR. (Eds.), Contemporary issues in heritage and environmental interpretation: Problems and prospects (pp. 56–76). London: The Stationery Office.
24.
DoiseW., MugnyG., & Perret-ClermontA. N. (1975). Social interaction and the development of cognitive operations.European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 367–383.
25.
DriverR. (1984). A review of research into children's thinking and learning in science. In BellB., WattsD. M., & EllingtonK. (Eds.), Learning, doing and understanding in science: The proceedings of a conference.London: SSCR.
26.
EaglesP.F.J. (1997). International ecotourism management: Using Australia and Africa as case studies. Paper presented at the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, Albany, Australia.
27.
FalkJ. H., & BallingJ. D. (1980). The school field trip: Where you go makes the difference.Science and Children, March 1980, 6–8.
28.
FalkJ., & DierkingL. (1992). The museum experience.Washington: Whalesback Books.
29.
FalkJ. H., MartinW. W., & BallingJ. D. (1978). The novel field trip phenomenon: Adjustment to novel settings interferes with task learning.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15 (2), 127–134.
30.
FerryB. (1995). Enhancing environmental experiences through effective partnerships among teacher educators, field study centers, and schools.Journal of Experiential Education, 18 (3), 133–137.
31.
FothergillJ., BinksG., DowerM., LeeT., & StringerP. (1978). Interpretation in visitor centres: A study of the effectiveness of interpretive services provided in visitor centres.CCP 115 Occasional Paper No. 10. Cheltenham: Countryside Commission.
32.
GoodeyB. (1998). Mediating the shock of the new: Interpreting the evolving city. In UzzellD. L., & BallantyneR. (Eds.), Contemporary issues in heritage and environmental interpretation: Problems and prospects (pp. 133–151). London: The Stationery Office.
33.
HallM., & McArthurS. (Eds.). (1996). Heritage management in New Zealand and Australia.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
HamS. (1992). Environmental interpretation.Golden, CO: North American Press.
35.
HamS. H., & KrumpeE. E. (1996). Identifying audiences and messages for nonformal environmental education: A theoretical framework for interpreters.Journal of Interpretation Research, 1 (1), 11–23.
36.
HirstP. H. (1965). Liberal education and the nature of knowledge. In ArchambaultR. D. (Ed.), Philosophical analysis and education.London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
37.
HolcombB. (1998). Gender and heritage interpretation. In UzzellD. L., & BallantyneR. (Eds.), Contemporary issues in heritage and environmental interpretation: Problems and prospects (pp. 37–55). London: The Stationery Office.
38.
HungerfordH. R., & VolkT. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education.Journal of Environmental Education, 21 (3), 8–21.
39.
KnappD., VolkT. L., & HungerfordH. R. (1997). The identification of empirically derived goals for program development in environmental interpretation.Journal of Environmental Education, 28 (3), 24–34.
40.
LeeT. (1998). Evaluating the effectiveness of heritage interpretation. In UzzellD. L., & BallantyneR. (Eds.), Contemporary issues in heritage and environmental interpretation: Problems and prospects (pp. 203–231). London: The Stationery Office.
41.
UzzellD. (1995). Creating place identity through heritage interpretation.International Journal of Heritage Studies, 1, 219–228.
42.
UzzellD. (1998a). Interpreting our heritage: A theoretical interpretation. In UzzellD. L., & BallantyneR. (Eds.), Contemporary issues in heritage and environmental interpretation: Problems and prospects (pp. 11–25). London: The Stationery Office.
43.
UzzellD. (1998b). The hot interpretation of the Cold War. In SchofieldJ. (Ed.), Monuments of war (pp. 18–21). London: English Heritage.
44.
UzzellD. (1999). Education for environmental action in the community: New roles and relationships. Manuscript submitted for publication.
45.
UzzellD., & BallantyneR. (1998). Heritage that hurts: Interpretation in a postmodern world. In UzzellD., and BallantyneR. (Eds.), Contemporary issues in heritage and environmental interpretation: Problems and prospects (pp. 152–171). London: The Stationery Office.
46.
World Tourism Organization. (1998). Compendium of tourism statistics, 1992–1996.Madrid: World Tourism Organization.
