2. Evaluation of Cave Interpretive Programs: Impact on Tourists’ Cave Knowledge and Attitudes. By Fara Linn Dyke And Janice Schnake Greene

3. Introduction Among the recreational resources in Missouri, are 25 commercial caves.* ­ There are more than 5,500 caves in Missouri. * Commercial cave = cave, fee, tour guide Important role of Parks and other Natural resources in providing environmental experiences and education.

4. Introduction Focus of Study: Interpretive Programs designed to inform tourists about the Cave Environment. Evaluate the Effect that the programs have on the knowledge and attitudes of tourists. ­ Study included 10 commercial caves in Missouri. ­- Public caves vs. Private caves

5. Hypothesis I The Public Cave Tourists Will Have A Greater Knowledge-Gain Score Than the Private Cave Tourists. Hypothesis II The Public Cave Tourists Will Have A Greater Attitude-Gain Score Than the Private Cave Tourists.

6. Methods Cave Selection ­ Introductory letters to caves ­ Obtained research permits ­ 4 Public* caves and 5 Private caves * Two of the original five public caves were combined.

7. Questionnaire Design 12 Knowledge questions 4 Attitude questions + Pre-survey also had: Demographic and Prior experience questions + Post-survey had: Open-ended and post experience questions

8. Questionnaire Distribution ­ Pre-Surveys were distributed to tourists, º voluntarily, prior to the cave tours º between July and November, 1998 º On at least 1 weekday and 1 weekend day ­ Post-Surveys were mailed to participants º 10 weeks after their cave visit. ­ Follow-up survey packets were sent to nonrespondents after 6 weeks.

9. Data Analysis * Public Cave # 2 vs. Other public caves Public caves vs. Private caves Pre- and post-survey scores, knowledge- and attitude-gain* Mann-Whitney U Test Comparison of levels within individual Demographic, prior-experience, and post-exposure factors Kruskal-Wallace Test

10. Results

11. Total Number of Completed Surveys Collected

12. The Knowledge Scores for Public Cave # 2 and the Other Public Caves.

13. Attitude Scores for Public Cave # 2 and the Other Public Caves.

14. Knowledge Scores for the Public and the Private Caves.

15. Correct Responses to the Knowledge Questions

16. Attitude Scores for the Public and Private Caves.

17. Attitude Selections and the Resulting Mean Scores

18. Attitude continued

19. Age and Education-level of the Survey Participants

20. What Cave Tourists Remember Most About Their Tour.

22. Visitors' Suggestions For Improving Tours.

23. Cave Tourists' Reasons For Protecting the Cave Environment.

25. Conclusions Hypothesis I: The Public cave visitors will have a greater knowledge gain than the Private cave visitors. –This was not supported. –Testing showed that the private cave visitors had a significantly greater knowledge gain.

26. Hypothesis II: The Public cave visitors will have a greater attitude gain than the Private cave visitors. –This was not supported. –There was no significant difference in attitude gain.

27. The Public cave respondents had a higher pre- and post-survey knowledge level. The Private cave respondents had a higher knowledge gain from pre- to post-survey. The Public cave visitors also had a higher pre- and post- attitude level. Both cave groups had high pre- and post-attitude scores.

28. Recommendations Address misconceptions. – Improve communication skills of guides. – Design program to correct inaccurate conceptions about the cave environment.

29. Implement an interactive program. – Ask the cave audience questions that are cave-related. – Develop directive brochures. – Incorporate effective educational displays... Recommendations

30. Build on existing attitudes –Supply more concepts and facts (knowledge) about how to conserve the cave environment.