There was a time period during the 2000 decade that I was reading Landscape Architecture magazines to enhance my design concept of the visitor experience and better understand their professional mindset. Certain articles I kept, that spoke to me for different reasons, and I have chosen two examples from 2007 that continue to provide inspiration. The third item snuck in- what can I say.
Right Memories
The first article by Lisa Owens Viani was titled The Feel of a Watershed, yet even more provocative was her subtitle, The Cedar River Watershed Education Center teaches by sensory experience. Should it do more? Triple whammy of intrigue here!
Firstly, one does not normally plan to get visitors to feel a watershed- so I was immediately interested in HOW this was going to be accomplished as feeling type outcomes have always been an underpinning of our EID practice that we encourage sites to include when planning. Secondly, a center managed by a utility that had heavily incorporated exterior sensory experience rather than just interior traditional exhibits was also unexpected, yet something to be applauded. Thirdly, the “should it do more” question was abit of a cliffhanger that set me to wondering about this outcome challenge coming from a landscape architect – whether they should play a more direct interpretive role- but what did that mean exactly? Was an interpretive specialist involved as part of the design team? Probably not if they were posing this type of question. Read on.
watershed rain drums Courtesy Cedar River Watershed Center web site
Author Viani states that the design purpose was to educate Greater Seattle residents about the source of their drinking water. In addition, the architect was aiming for visitors to develop a new awareness of how to shape their own environments and behaviour in ways that could lead to healthier watersheds.
Evaluating Educational Effectiveness
A welcoming courtyard incorporated an artist installed sound- of- rain -falling -onto- drums recirculating irrigation system, computer programmed to the rhythms of different world cultures. They reported that visitors have a 3-stage reaction: they are “surprised, enchanted and inspired.” WOW. Imagine if you could design in and accomplish this level of staging for all your interpretive programs and exhibits? Guess what more visitors remembered most about the site? Read on.
What the architects were going for was a place-based experience “that creates a mental vessel to put information into.” Rain drums and the stream that circulated under the building and beside the pathway brought water awareness to the forefront. They evaluated the educational effectiveness of their design by asking the following questions over a year and a half:
· Are there features that helped foster new appreciation of water? Or a new awareness?
· What do you think the designers were trying to say with the way the buildings and landscape were designed?
· From your experience here, what is your impression of the watershed?
· What stands out in your memory that you’ll take from this place?
· What home practices might you be willing to undertake after your visit today?
Remember the design purpose was to educate Greater Seattle residents about the source of their drinking water and how they impact a healthy watershed. Would these have been the questions you would have asked?
Follow a water drop Courtesy Cedar River Watershed Educational Center web site
Learning Assessment
Can you really assess new learnings without getting a sense, before the visit, of the base level of awareness of individual visitors? There is even a quote in the article from project co-manager, Nancy Rottle, stating, “Whenever you have a visitor, what they take away always depends on what they bring with them.” I rest my case. Remember this when you are involved with setting up a program/exhibit/trail evaluation.
Betcha landscape architects were most interested in the answers to question #2 and were happy to know that more than half of interviewees said the built design felt like it belonged and fit in with nature? If visitors were helped to reflect on how their own living and working spaces did or did not do the same, that would bring relevance back home.
More than 50% of those surveyed gave a high likelihood of creating habitat with native plantings, conserving water, designing buildings differently and using environmentally sustainable materials at home due to exhibit design. A third indicated they would collect and reuse rainwater or detain stormwater. In cases where concepts were not seemingly grasped it was felt that direct interpretation was “not compelling” enough or that call out features for visitors were missing, as in the green rooves -metal rooves situation.
Visitors were expected to make the connections between the water holding green rooves metaphor for healthy watersheds, and contrast that with the water shedding metal rooves metaphor for unhealthy watersheds, replicating the impervious urban streetscape. This did not happen as the features were not directly pointed out or commented on. With an absence of interpretive signage, the bioswale and the role of infiltration basins to prevent erosion by detaining water were similarly absent from visitors’ commentary. Also absent from commentary seen as a missed interpretive opportunity, was the daylighted creek that had been in a pipe before the project had been started (something close to home for urbanites) .
Courtesy Cedar River Watershed Educational Center web site
The design was summarized as doing the right thing in many ways:
· Respected nature and cultural site aspects
· Educated and delighted through interactive opportunities
· Provided take-home ideas for visitors to use
· Told the story of water beautifully through aesthetic design
This latter point is driven home by the following descriptor: “The elegant S curve of the runnel meander, languidly sighs ‘liquid’ in a captivating way. A veritable illustration of Hogarth’s * serpentine line of beauty.” How is that for landscapese? What this translates as, is the designer chose to use with cast iron grates that are perforated with lilting curves to reinforce the water theme.
*Trivia Note: Hogarth, William was an English painter, printmaker, pictorial satirist, social critic and editorial cartoonist. His work ranges from realistic portraiture to comic -strip like series of pictures called "modern moral subjects." Not sure if the reference was apt – seems like she was referring to another painter by the name of William; in this case the English landscape painter-Mr.Turner. Anyone out there have an opinion? Am I off base?
Under Interpretation
Author Viani wonders towards the end of the article whether it is possible to under interpret something by avoiding being too didactic, as the project manager was concerned about. Manager Nancy Rottle cautioned that you want to avoid “hitting [people] over the head with information.” Was that a shot at poor interpretation?? That hammer approach should never happen, however many professionals still have that view of interpretation. At the same time subtle interpretive cues can solve the sole dependence on design that people walk by and do not “see.” The pendulum can swing both ways, so I would agree that conceptual osmosis does not work for many intended outcomes if design is left to its own devices. You could easily under interpret if architects and interpretive specialists are not integrated into a team interpretive effort as the evaluative research indicates.
What stood out in visitor memories? A third of interviewees stated it would be the multisensory rain drums. As Nancy Rottle, project co-manager says, ”memory is more about feeling than cognition. You have to be moved before something sticks with you.” Right on. It is not clear how they capitalized on this emotional draw however to accomplish their overall educational purpose driving home water’s preciousness, its value of being present and visible/audible, along with the visitors’ role in its conservation.
Courtesy Bill Reynolds
The majority of respondents overwhelmingly (author’s word not mine) felt the facility helped them understand the concept of watershed. It was not clear whether this was tested somehow and they really did understand or they just simply responded that way. The author pointed out that understanding where Seattle’s water comes from was accomplished, however what wasn’t clear was whether downtown Seattleites understood that they lived in the watershed also and could have a direct impact on its health. If they had been asked to draw a picture starting and ending with clouds of where their tap water came from and drain water went to -and they were correct- OK mission accomplished.
This is especially important as the dying of Puget Sound is being attributed to urban runoff from Seattle. The author felt a more encompassing view of the total watershed would ramp up the motivation for visitors to change behaviour to benefit water quality. Author Lisa Viani suggested that the topographic model of the watershed could be expanded to include urban Seattle or a separate model be placed “downstream” of the upper watershed model.
This is something she shares with Erin Frost, a member of the Friends of the Cedar River Watershed as they have observed a major disconnect with the holistic understanding of the Puget Sound as the final resting place. Specific streams have friends groups but they lack the big picture understanding she said. This begs the question if there was a discussion with stakeholder groups prior to setting the purpose of the centre?
A thorough analysis of the post-occupancy evaluation is included in the 2005 Proceedings of the Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture.
Right People
Stakeholder group discussions are so vital and they act as the segue to the second article. According to my estimation, this is the first (and perhaps the last) example of this interpretive landscape project. Another west coast facility situated in Ashland, Oregon this time, the Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory were in need of an anti-attack buffer. But not any old anti-attack buffer – one that would be designed as an appealing garden that told the story of the unusual lab operations.
Courtesy Biomimicry Institute web site
This article was authored by Michael and Laura Murphy, and titled CSI: Wildlife with the subheading: A most unusual federal laboratory calls on students to help design an interpretive landscape. It was a classic case of Fish and Wildlife partnership between their project engineer, their landscape architect, and their interpretive specialist, mixed in with a University class of landscape architecture students. Happens all the time, right. Wrong! Yet why don’t these alliances come to pass more often. Probably because they don’t all have a Professor Helphand involved- I kid you not that is his actual name. Actually, because it takes co-ordination and requires more time. And in the case with students, you need a partner who realizes the beneficial enthusiasm that can be unearthed at a university. The collaborative process undertaken and described next is instructive.
The F&W trio from regional HQ travelled to Ashland to pitch the idea to the city planning officials and the forensic lab professionals. Having the concept supported upfront by involving stakeholders upfront is key. Then the trio plus the lab director travelled to the University to pitch the need for a people-friendly yet vehicular- free secure garden involving hillocks, seat walls, berms, reinforced interpretive bollards, etc.
A comprehensive visit to the lab and a dozen international science garden case studies, were supplied to the students, for conceptual design approach ideas, including the Garden of Cosmic Speculation in Scotland (guaranteed to be a rabbit hole for those curious sorts out there). This culminated at the end of term with a rare lab open house for the community of Ashland including many children and the garden club.
Ideas included a spiral path addressed issues of species extinction, another used typical forensic puzzle pieces as wayfinders, and another used a whale skeleton rib structure as a defining pathway feature. The winning overall design used the three symmetrically intersecting circles of forensic science as the garden layout basis. The suspect, the victim, and the crime scene link together forming the triangular intersection being the solution(s)-a recurring diagrammatic structure found in many disciplines.
Right Invitation
Caught among these landscape architecture articles was a single piece of paper that fluttered to the floor garnering my sideways glance. From an old Parks Canada Fundy National Park publication (sorry, couldn’t find a date-probably 30ish years ago), I was struck by a simple yet arresting image of a park naturalist standing with an outstretched hand in front of the visitor centre. The accompanying article by Superintendent Jackie Olsen was titled, “We’re Glad You’re Here” and it invited you to spend some time there, watch a video and observe some marine life in the aquaria. WOW again. When does that happen anymore – receiving a “welcoming booklet” and being greeted in front of the visitor centre with such an expression along with a detailed invitation.
Inviting? Image Courtesy Bill Reynolds
Aside: I visited one of our provincial parks this month and you would never had known there was an existing visitor centre because the one insignificant street like sign directing you there was all that we encountered car-wise and bike-wise as we travelled around the park for 4 days. Yes it was indicated on park maps and it was a small font size similar to the beach changehouse, laundry spot and campground registration booth. I sure hope your visitor centre commands more real estate, markets itself to the visiting public, and invites them to come on in and receive assistance in planning their visit.
Then I was hit with a follow up quotation from James Harkin, former Commissioner of National Parks from 1911-1936. It encapsulated the hoped- for visitor rejuvenation all staff desire. It is true now as it was back in the early 20th century:
“National parks are maintained for all the people – for the ill that they may be restored; for the well that they may be fortified and inspired by the sunshine, the fresh air, the beauty, and all the other healing, ennobling agencies of Nature. They exist in order that every citizen of Canada may satisfy his craving for Nature and Nature’s Beauty; that he may absorb the poise and restfulness of the forest; that he may fill his soul with the brilliance of the wildflowers and the sublimity of the mountain peaks; that he may develop the buoyancy, the joy, and the activity he sees in the wild animals; that he may stock his brain and mind with great thought, and noble ideas; that he may be made better, be healthier, and happier” (and this was written by a bureaucrat??). ”
Superintendent Jackie summarized by saying how all staff were proud and dedicated to doing their part to make the Commissioner’s wish come true for all visitors. Not a bad series of outcomes for staff to aspire to make happen. Not a bad set of expectations for visitors to try to achieve either. How would you measure them?
Image courtesy Bill Reynolds
As visitors depart the park should we ask - On a scale of 1-10 how fortified and inspired by the various ennobling agencies of nature have you been? Imagine if we could tap into how much more productive or innovative visitors felt during and after a park visit…
Actually, I am only being slightly facetious-primarily with the wording. Would our parks be offered more protection and have a higher economic value if regional directors, deputy ministers and politicians were to receive such evaluative feedback on a regular basis beyond simply attendance and revenue? (I know, I know, I am just an old-fashioned idealistic romantic… are there any others of you out there?)