One of the key principles of interpretive planning is that it works within other planning contexts. It works in harmony with other planning processes—especially management planning. If you’re familiar with heritage landscapes like parks, forest reserves, or similar sites, you’ll know that management plans are often the backbone for guiding how these places are run.
What’s in a Management Plan?
Management plans are typically broad in scope, covering a range of topics from resource protection and recreation to community relations, Indigenous engagement, and yes—interpretation. These plans are supposed to guide pretty much everything that happens at the site, shaping how the organization stewards the place.
In a perfect world, these management plans are up-to-date, comprehensive, and ready to go before we even begin interpretive planning. The stars align, and we’ve got a fresh management plan that clearly identifies the big-picture goals for the site, without any outdated commitments hanging over our heads.
When Things Go Off Track
Unfortunately, it’s rarely a perfect world. One of the biggest challenges I see is when management plans veer off course, particularly when they start delving into the weeds of interpretive planning. I’ve seen plans that include specific directives like, “Develop four new school programs” or “Create three new guided walks for a targeted audience.”
Now, don’t get me wrong—those are fine ideas in theory. But the problem is, management planners aren’t always interpretive planners. They might not have the expertise, time, or resources to assess whether those programs are actually viable, or if they’re even the right fit for the site and its audience. And yet, suddenly, these directives become our problem as interpretive planners; they’re often published to partners and stakeholders and, in some cases, tabled in parliament.
Helpful Directives vs. Less Helpful Directives
Knowing the difference between a helpful and less helpful directive can make all the difference in how we approach management planning.
Helpful directive: The site’s interpretation should connect visitors to the challenges of climate change at the site and in the region.
This is a high-level, clear directive that gives interpretive planners the freedom to explore the right media and programs that connect visitors with climate change issues. It sets a meaningful goal, and we, as planners, can determine the best way to execute it.
Less helpful directive: The site will print three brochures about climate change.
While this is certainly an attempt at direction, it’s too specific and narrow. It limits us to one tool (brochures) without considering what will most effectively engage visitors. Without proper research or consultation, it’s not the best use of resources.
Another example:
Helpful directive: Community and staff feedback shows that the wetlands are attractive to visitors and challenging to manage. Interpretation, along with enforcement and site engineering, can help manage the site sustainably. Within three years, a sustainable wetlands interpretation solution should be in place.
This is a great starting point. It recognizes the value of interpretation while acknowledging other factors like enforcement and engineering. It also allows for flexibility in how interpretation can address the challenges, ensuring a collaborative, comprehensive solution.
Less helpful directive: An interpretive boardwalk will be put in place within three years.
This feels too prescriptive and lacks the necessary background research. We need to know if a boardwalk is the right solution, and whether it aligns with the site’s needs, visitor interest, and broader management goals.
What Management Plans Should Do
Here’s the thing: management plans should absolutely identify what’s important in terms of connecting visitors with the site’s heritage. They should set the stage by listing high-level outcomes that interpretation should aim to achieve. They can also include some basic success indicators for the site’s interpretation program.
But, in my view, they should stay clear of prescribing specific interpretive media or programs. The temptation to jump directly to tools or tactics—before doing adequate research and consultation—is a common pitfall that can muddy the waters. It’s essential that we as interpretive planners avoid stepping in too soon, trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
A Better Approach
Instead of getting bogged down in the details of “how” to deliver specific programs, a management plan should leave room for us—interpretive planners—to step in and bring that vision to life. Armed with evidence-based strategies and community-centred solutions, we can make those high-level goals happen. We can ensure that interpretation aligns with the site’s larger goals, and we can tailor the experience to both the place and the people who interact with it.
So, next time you’re reviewing a management plan, take a step back and think: Is this guiding the big-picture vision, or is it overstepping into the nitty-gritty of interpretive execution? If it’s the latter, it might be time for a conversation about how to let the experts do their thing—without prescribing the tools before the research and consultation have been done.
I’m teaching a course in this interpretive planning stuff. I think you might enjoy it.
Leave a Reply