Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 25 (2019) 132–142

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jort

Best practice principles for communicating safety messages in national parks T

a b,⁎ c b
Rob Saunders , Betty Weiler , Pascal Scherrer , Heather Zeppel
a
Rob Saunders and Associates, Australia
b
School of Business and Tourism, Southern Cross University, Gold Coast, Australia
c
School of Business and Tourism, Southern Cross University, Lismore, Australia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Effective communication of safety information for visitors to national parks and other protected areas is es-
Safety signs sential, particularly where the potential consequences of incidents are severe. Signs are often the primary
Warning messages communication tool for safety messages in national parks. Compliance-based approaches to safety signs using
Protected areas standards drawn from occupational safety are common, though empirical research into the effectiveness of
National parks
safety signs in national parks and protected areas generally remains limited. To encourage a more pro-active
Visitor safety
approach to visitor safety, this paper offers an alternative by proposing and field-testing best practice principles
(BPPs) for safety signs in parks. It first presents a literature review of safety sign research that, together with
consideration of the current policy and practice of leading protected area management agencies, underpinned
the development of three sets of BPPs for communicating safety messages. The set of BPPs that focused on safety
signs in national parks were then field-tested in two Australian states. The results point to the theoretical as well
as the practical value of best practice principles. In particular, they help reveal why and how particular signs are
effective at communicating safety messages. From a management perspective, the BPPs offer a holistic yet
contextually-adaptable approach to benchmarking and evaluation. The three sets of BPPs also draw attention to
the importance of both a coordinated interpretation and communication approach and an overarching risk
management framework in which the use of safety signage is embedded.
Management implications:
● The paper presents best practice principles for safety signage and communication for managing visitor risk in
protected areas. In addition the following aspects should be considered to enhance the effectiveness of
warning concepts:
● Insights into the target audience including the respective awareness of risks and cultural differences in the
various countries of origin.
● Familiarity with and perception of possible risks within different visitor segments.
● Familiarity with the presented communication means (illustrations, language, colors).
● Information prior to the stay to avoid inappropriate expectations and increase the awareness of possible risks.

1. Introduction
Fatalities and serious injuries to visitors in Australian protected
areas (PAs) such as national parks seem to involve a mix of accident,
tragedy and human risk-taking similar to those in American national
parks (Whittlesey, 2014) and probably elsewhere. Considerable media
attention is given to rare attacks by crocodiles in northern Australia and
bears in the United States, but most incidents involving park visitors are
mundane. While published data are incomplete, drownings, falls and
falling objects appear to dominate unintentional deaths and serious
injuries (excluding road vehicle-related accidents) in both countries
(Brookes, 2003, 2007; Tuler, Golding & Krueger, 2002; Washington
Post, 2015). The underlying cause often appears to be visitors’ failure to
understand the seriousness of risk in unfamiliar and unpredictable
natural environments.
With visitor use of protected areas increasing and diversifying, the
potential for serious incidents and litigation is of growing concern to
national park managers (Buckley, Witting, & Guest, 2001). To manage
risk, a range of visitor risk and safety management strategies can be
employed. They include hard management solutions such as barriers,
fences and other infrastructure, regulation of visitor activities and en-
forcement. They also include softer measures such as zoning and sea-
sonal activity restrictions, visitor education via websites, visitor centres
and face-to-face communication by park staff, and on-site signs that aim

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: betty.weiler@scu.edu.au (B. Weiler).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2018.01.006
Received 25 August 2017; Received in revised form 5 January 2018; Accepted 10 January 2018
2213-0780/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Saunders et al.
to manage visitor expectations and behaviour. Engineering is generally
an expensive form of hazard minimisation, while restricting access
through enforcement tends to be the least preferred option (Worboys,
Lockwood, Kothari, Feary, & Pulsford, 2015). Communication aimed at
influencing visitor behaviour is the more common and preferred ap-
proach to managing safety, but despite extensive research into per-
suasive communication, few empirical studies have been undertaken
into effective visitor safety messaging in national parks and other
protected areas.
Signs are usually the medium of choice for presenting safety mes-
sages to park visitors. Warning signs are particularly relied upon where
it is not feasible for staff to be present at all times and other forms of
communication are impractical. Case law reinforces this strategy
(Buckley et al., 2001). The absence or inadequacy of warning signs can
be construed as a failure to take reasonable care, exposing park man-
agement agencies to legal liability (e.g. Collins, 2008).
The need to ensure at least a basic level of care in a variety of si-
tuations has led many park managers to develop manuals to guide the
systematic use of safety signs in national parks, for example Parks
Canada (2007) and Western Australia DPAW (2014). However, these
may also promote the uncritical acceptance of a formulaic, compliance-
based approach framed around national or international standards
adapted from dissimilar situations and contexts. Questions about the
appropriateness of particular signs can arise when serious injuries or
fatalities occur (e.g. Parsons, 2014).
The term standard is typically used to indicate a minimum required
level of service or product quality. Standards Australia defines stan-
dards as “documents setting out specifications, procedures and guide-
lines. They are designed to ensure products, services and systems are
safe, reliable and consistent” (Standards Australia, n.d.). In the present
paper, a standard refers to a benchmark that protected area manage-
ment agencies choose to comply with, and it implies a ‘minimum’ rather
than a ‘best’ level of service. While the term best practice is sometimes
used interchangeably with standard, in the present paper best practice
refers to an approach that has consistently been shown to achieve re-
sults superior to those achieved with other means, and is thus used as a
mechanism for organisations striving to exceed minimum standards.
This paper aims to present best practice principles (BPPs) and criti-
cally evaluates their use as an alternative, evidence-based approach for
conceptualising and operationalising safety communication and for
theoretical, empirical and practical improvements. This is needed be-
cause, while standards offer benchmarks against which signs can be
assessed for compliance purposes, they do not reveal answers to how
and why communications perform the way they do. One contribution of
this paper is a review of a broad range of safety and risk communication
literature that has been underpinned by communication theory and
empirical research, as a basis for developing a set of BPPs. The potential
use of BPPs extends beyond benchmarking to evaluation. Examining
what makes safety communication work or not work generates insights
that can enhance visitor safety management beyond compliance with
minimum standards.
Development of these BPPs arose from a project initiated by the
Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS) in Australia, an orga-
nisation with a history of innovation in, and critical reflection on, their
visitor safety communications (Beckman & Savage, 2003; Parkin &
Morris, 2005). The paper first outlines the literature on warning and
regulatory signs, which informs the BPPs. Importantly, consideration is
given not only to the design and use of signs (set 1), but also to how
signs relate to other forms of safety messaging, resulting in a second set
of BPPs for the coordination of safety message communication in na-
tional parks (set 2). The study further considered risk management
frameworks and agency responses to visitor incidents (set 3).
The application, relevance and robustness of the BPPs were then
field-tested in evaluations of safety signs across a range of sites and
contexts in two Australian states – Queensland and Victoria – in col-
laboration with their respective management agencies. Applying the
133
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 25 (2019) 132–142
best practice principles in a broad context was found not only to help
assess the effectiveness of safety signs, but also to point to other po-
tential areas for improving visitor risk management. Examples are
provided of signs that illustrate aspects of the BPPs and insights into the
application of the BPPs in field situations are discussed, with sugges-
tions for possible future refinements and research.
2. Review of academic and applied management literature
2.1. Scope of the review of literature and review of current approaches by
protected area management agencies
The literature on safety warnings is broad, but empirical research is
largely based in product development and workplace safety situations.
To ensure comprehensive coverage of literature informing the com-
munication of safety messages in national parks and other protected
areas, the authors’ internet search drew upon nine relevant research
databases, together with targeted searches of key journals and the
websites of major parks and recreation agencies.
In addition, ten leading researchers in Australia and New Zealand
were contacted by email to enquire about recent research, reports and
articles related to safety signs in parks. Contact was also made with all
Australian and several selected overseas national park management
agencies (including Department of Conservation in New Zealand, Parks
Canada and the U.S. National Park Service) regarding reports and stu-
dies of safety messages and warning signs in parks. A request-for-in-
formation article targeted at interpretation practitioners was posted in
the Interpretation Australia Newsletter (5 May, 2015). Finally, a ques-
tion was posted on the academic online network Research Gate (28
April, 2015) asking ‘How effective are visitor safety and warning signs
in National Parks?’
Collectively, these methods identified a total of more than 200 peer-
reviewed articles and evidence-based reports relating to warning sign
content, design and evaluation. The technical report (Weiler, Zeppel,
Saunders, & Scherrer, 2015), which includes the full list of articles and
reports reviewed, is available at https://works.bepress.com/betty_
weiler/109/.
2.2. Inventorying and categorising principles relevant to protected areas
The objectives of the review of literature were to compile and cri-
tically assess best practice safety signage characteristics from pro-
fessionally acknowledged sources that were relevant to the context of
safety communication in protected areas. In addition, the study team
aimed to integrate relevant conceptual frameworks underlying the ap-
plication of those characteristics to the diverse audiences, varied set-
tings, and risk management contexts of national parks. The result is a
multi-faceted approach that drew on two important interacting fields of
study: communication and risk.
Communication has long been conceptualised as a process involving
source, medium, content and receiver. Each element can influence the
outcomes of communication and contribute to its effectiveness, or in-
effectiveness. Importantly, safety messaging in parks is a form of per-
suasive communication, as it aims to influence visitor behaviour.
Persuasive communication has become an important area of social
psychological research and theory in recent decades (e.g. Petty &
Cacioppo, 1981, 1986), and ideas derived from these frameworks un-
derlie much recent literature.
Risk is an emerging field of research (Espiner, 2001), particularly in
relation to protected areas. Many aspects of natural settings are in-
trinsically unpredictable and it is neither feasible nor desirable to re-
move all risks. Opportunities to meet challenges, achieve goals and gain
a sense of autonomy are important aspects of tourism in natural areas,
particularly adventure tourism (Gstaettner, Lee, & Rodger, 2016; Walle,
1997; Weber, 2001). It is also vital to balance visitor use with nature
conservation objectives (Scherrer, Moyle, Weiler, & Wilson, 2016). As a
R. Saunders et al. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 25 (2019) 132–142

result, the appropriate mix of engineering, regulation and commu-
nication for managing visitor behaviour typically varies with the setting
(Brown, Koth, Kreag, & Weber, 2006). While hazards are often mini-
mised in developed areas, visitors may simply be unaware or not well
informed about risks in protected areas, particularly in more remote
settings (Gstaettner, Rodger, & Lee, 2017; McCool & Braithwaite, 1992;
Worboys et al., 2015).
These considerations, combined with the resource constraints of the
study, led us to use the literature to compile best practice principles
(BPPs) in particular ways. Firstly, we assembled our first set of BPPs as a
checklist of best practice safety signage characteristics from relevant
sources, and structured it to reflect the key components of a commu-
nication process based on Rogers, Lamson, and Rousseau's (2000) in-
formation processing of visually presented warnings. Their integrative
perspective focused on warning as a communication process and in-
itially grouped variables identified from the literature into sender and
receiver categories: warning variables and person variables (Rogers
et al., 2000). In the context of national parks, person variables are
largely impossible to capture in a generic set of best practice principles
due to the diversity of audiences, changing patterns of use, and the need
in most cases for signs to be relevant to multiple audiences (Zanon,
2007). The incorporation of person variables into safety communication
is addressed in several later sections of this paper.
In contrast, warning variables are readily amenable to management
and have been widely researched. These encompass the full range of
characteristics of the warning and its context: physical factors such as
colour, layout and type style, along with more abstract characteristics
including tone, explicitness and interactivity. Their grouping of
warning variables into four components (see Section 4.1) has the ad-
vantage of highlighting particular areas of the warning process that
might be problematic in any given situation, and allowing the strengths
and weaknesses of specific safety signs to be assessed.
Secondly, we developed a separate set of best practice principles in
relation to the broader context of visitor communications, in order to
stimulate thinking about persuasive communication for safety purposes
beyond the realm of signs. Finally, our third set of BPPs considers the
role of risk management policies, procedures and tools, including sign
manuals, in the context of visitor incidents. The results of each of these
project components are summarised in Tables 1–3 respectively, and are
discussed in Section 4.
3. Study sites and methods for field-testing
The first set of BPPs (principles of safety signage) was field-tested on
a total of eight visitor locations in protected areas: three in Queensland
and five in Victoria. All of these were selected by the relevant man-
agement agency (Queensland Parks & Wildlife Service (QPWS) and
Parks Victoria (PV)) as priority sites because of their history of serious
incidents. In some cases this history extended over several decades and
a range of possible communication and other management strategies
had already been tried. All sites had experienced recent incidents and in
some cases warning signage had been reviewed and modified as a re-
sult. Certain sites have not been identified in this paper for legal rea-
sons.
A variety of different visitor risk situations were represented in each
state. Serious incidents occurring at the Queensland sites included falls
and drownings, typically at waterfalls or in fast-flowing rivers and
creeks particularly after heavy rain. Similar issues had also occurred at
the Victorian sites, but these also included deaths and serious injuries
from falling tree branches, along with other potentially serious issues
such as becoming lost in rugged and remote terrain. Both states also had
comprehensive sign manuals that were reviewed in detail by the study
team.
One of the constraints of the initial Queensland project was that site
visits were unable to be conducted by the project team due to time
constraints set by the agency. Instead, a comprehensive set of site maps
and photographs were obtained and extended telephone interviews
were carried out with local QPWS operational staff and separately with
communications specialists responsible for each site. For the three
Queensland sites, six interviews averaging close to 30 min each were
carried out by one of the co-authors. Interviews were taped, transcribed
and analysed for content by the research team.
For PV, detailed reviews were carried out for each of the five lo-
cations by one of the co-authors working as part of an internal audit
team. While the core of the audit team remained constant (the co-au-
thor and a corporate and legal governance officer), each site visit in-
volved relevant local operational managers and corporate and regional
communications specialists. Review teams for each site thus consisted
of between five and eight staff. Each site visit lasted between 2 h and a
full day. Areas where incidents had occurred were observed and local
operational staff outlined each incident. Context, safety signage and
other relevant infrastructure was assessed against the BPPs. The review
process in each case included semi-structured observations, assessments

Table 1
Best Practice Principles for on-site safety signs in national parks.
Component Guidelines

Noticeability To be noticed, safety signs should be:

1a) Of a shape, size and colour that contrasts with surroundings and attracts attention;
1b) Separated from surrounding information;
1c) Located close to the centre of vision as visitors approach;
1d) Orientated perpendicular (rather than parallel) to major visitor pathways.
Encoding To be readily translated into an internal representation, safety information should include:
1e) A graphic visual demonstration of the hazard;
1f) Short, familiar words including signal words (DANGER, WARNING, CAUTION) denoting the level of hazard;
1g) Large and well-spaced text which can be read from a comfortable viewing distance, with a mixture of upper and lower case in easily read fonts (such as
Helvetica or Times). Signal words should be larger than text, and in colour;
1h) Languages in addition to English where appropriate.
Comprehension To ensure comprehension, safety signs must have four key elements:
1i) The signal word DANGER, WARNING or CAUTION, highlighted in specific colours to denote the level of hazard. Red and yellow are standard risk level
indicator colours which should be used consistently;
1j) A statement of the hazard (with symbol if possible). Messages should be limited to a small number of issues, perhaps as few as two;
1k) An example of the possible consequences. The potential severity of outcomes is critical to risk perception;
1l) Simple instructions on how to avoid the hazard. Use injunctive (ought) or proscriptive (do not) messages.
Compliance To encourage compliance, safety signs should:
1m) Be located near the site of the hazard;
1n) Be authorised by a credible source;
1o) Include circle slash negation symbols, however these must not conceal critical features of symbols with the slash;
1p) Describe the intended behavioural response.

134
R. Saunders et al. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 25 (2019) 132–142

Table 2
BPPs for associated communication and interpretation in national parks.
Component Guidelines

Co-ordination To enhance the effectiveness of on-site safety signs, key messages should be co-ordinated with associated visitor communications.
This could include:
2a) Multiple media (including non-agency media) delivered at different stages of the visitor experience. In particular, communication delivered during trip
planning could encourage appropriate expectations and preparation;
2b) Messages targeted to specific audiences, recognising that different visitors may be at different stages of development;
2c) A focus on social norms regarding desired behaviours;
2d) The use of narrative stories to appeal to empathy;
2e) Statistics about accidents;
2f) Interactive elements to generate response and engage mindfulness;
2g) Role modelling of appropriate behaviours through training of commercial operators, volunteers and others active in problem areas; and personal contact
with visitors by rangers or other (preferably uniformed) employees;
2h) Clear statements of safe alternatives to popular but potentially hazardous activities or locations.

Table 3
BPPs for visitor risk management systems in national parks.
Component Guidelines

Risk management context
To ensure a comprehensive approach to visitor safety, visitor safety signage and communication should be managed within an appropriate risk
management system. This may include:
3a) A risk management policy compliant with AS/NZS ISO 31000;
3b) Risk management procedures which specifically address visitor risk management;
3c) Guidelines and tools (e.g. manuals, training courses) to guide staff in their response to serious incidents;
3d) Monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of responses to serious incidents;
3e) Detailed understanding of factors influencing visitor expectations and preparation;
3f) Engagement with stakeholders to help manage visitor expectations and preparation;
3g) Clear choices available to visitors and clear directions to appropriate locations for preferred activities;
3h) Regular inspection and maintenance of signs, and adjustment as required (e.g. due to changing conditions).

and discussions on-site; further discussion and analysis off-site; and the
production of a detailed internal audit report which was then reviewed
by operational staff. Time spent traveling between sites offered valuable
opportunities for further discussion and reflection within assessment
teams.
4. Results: Developing and testing the best practice principles
framework
4.1. BPP set 1: On-site safety signs in national parks
As mentioned in Section 2.2, the theoretical framework adopted for
assessing safety signs was based on Rogers et al. (2000), who reviewed
and summarised a wide variety of previous safety messaging literature.
Rogers et al. (2000) distinguished four components of the warning
process. These four components provide a useful framework for safety
communication with visitors to national parks:
a) Noticing or directing attention to the warning;
b) Encoding the warning into some form of internal representation;
c) Comprehending or understanding the meaning of the warning; and
d) Complying with the warning.
It is important to note that the warning process does not necessarily
occur in a linear way, but can be multi-directional and interactive
(Rogers et al., 2000; Wogalter & Laughery, 1996). This means the ef-
fectiveness of a given sign in a given situation can depend on interac-
tions between features of the sign and, as mentioned in Section 2.2,
what Rogers et al. (2000) refer to as person variables (e.g. socio-de-
mographic factors as well as cognitive and personality characteristics).
For example, willingness to comply might be influenced by familiarity
with a park location, and might also affect the likelihood of a person
noticing a warning.
Interconnections and non-linear aspects of the warning process also
mean some factors can appear in more than one process component.
Thus, some signage variables can be repeated in different components
of the BPPs. For example the shape, size and colour of signs all affect
their noticeability; large text with familiar signal words (e.g. danger or
warning) in an appropriate colour affect how readily they are encoded;
and signal words in standard risk-level indicating colours (i.e. red or
yellow) affect their ease of comprehension. As Rogers et al. (2000: 104)
emphasise, repetition of variables in different components reflects the
interactive effect among these different components.
The four components of the warning process became the key orga-
nisational structure within the BPP framework for on-site safety signs in
national parks. These are outlined in more detail in the following
subsections and are summarised in Table 1.
4.1.1. Noticeability
To be effective, warning signs must first be noticed. In a national
park context there may be a degree of conflict between aesthetic con-
siderations and the need for warnings to stand out. Where corporate
colours are chosen for signage backgrounds, they can sometimes blend
in with the surrounding environment. There may also be tension be-
tween the desire to welcome visitors and the need to warn them about
potentially serious hazards. The intended tone can influence the ap-
pearance of signs, which can then affect their noticeability.
The literature identifies several design elements that contribute to
the noticeability of signs, particularly shape, size and colour (Williams
& Noyes, 2007). However, in a park, the location and placement of
signs may be even more critical. Rogers et al. (2000) highlight the
importance of separating warning signs from surrounding information
to avoid distraction. Two other significant factors are positioning signs
close to visitors’ centre of vision, and orientating them perpendicular to
major pathways, to directly face approaching people (Moscardo,
Woods, & Saltzer, 2004).
We have emphasised the placement of signs for noticeability by
framing three of the four elements of the BPPs for this component
around issues of separation, visibility and orientation. Design aspects
are grouped into one element of noticeability, since design also plays
substantial roles in other components of message effectiveness.

135
R. Saunders et al.
4.1.2. Encoding
Signs may be gazed at only briefly by park visitors (Lackey & Ham,
2003), but safety messages can be absorbed quickly if a graphic visual
demonstration of the hazard is included (Laughery & Young, 1991;
Matthews, Andronaco, & Adams, 2014; Rogers et al., 2000). Im-
portantly, the level of hazard also needs to be readily encoded, pre-
ferably using short, familiar signal words such as Danger or Warning
(Young, Wogalter, Laughery, Magurno, & Lovvoll, 1995).
Much of the research into message design is situational, generating
variable results. There is consistent evidence that text is more readily
encoded when it is large and well-spaced, can be read from a comfor-
table distance, and uses upper and lower case (Tinker, 1963). There is
also support for signal words being larger than other text and in colour
(Braun & Silver, 1995). Findings in relation to typefaces are less clear-
cut (Wheildon, 2004), although some (e.g. Helvetica and Times) are
widely accepted as easily read and thus more readily encoded.
While use of languages in addition to English can be important
(Moscardo, Gooch, Tomas, & Barnett, 2010), issues arise about which
languages to use and how many can reasonably be accommodated on
signs. Visual symbols are increasingly used in such cases (Murray,
Magurno, Glover, & Wogalter, 1998) and may be combined with
translations of signal words. More extensive use of languages other than
English is occasionally supported as part of a broader communication
strategy (e.g. Beckmann & Savage, 2003).
4.1.3. Comprehension
It is vital that visitors fully comprehend the nature of any risk to
their safety. Signal words are important in understanding the severity of
the risk (Hellier, Aldrich, Wright, Daunt, & Edworthy, 2007; Wogalter,
Jarrad, & Simson, 1995). These should be highlighted in risk level in-
dicator colours, with red signifying life-threatening danger and yellow
indicating a lower level warning (Braun, Kline, & Silver, 1995;
Chapanis, 1994).
To comprehend risk a clear statement of each hazard is also re-
quired, illustrated if possible using a graphic symbol. The number of
distinct messages per sign needs to be small, and limitations of human
memory and information processing suggest no more than seven
(Miller, 1956). Fewer may well be better, as it has been observed that
increasing the number of messages beyond two does not enhance visi-
tors’ knowledge (Manning, 2003).
The potential severity of outcomes has been found to be critical to
risk perception and assessment (Young & Wogalter, 1998), so it is im-
portant to include a description of possible consequences. Simple in-
structions on what to do in order to avoid a hazard encourages a focus
on positive behaviour, however there is evidence that injunctive
(ought) and proscriptive (do not) messages can be effective, particularly
in the short-term (Winter, 2006).
4.1.4. Compliance
The final component of the warning process involves a visitor's
decision to comply with a warning and their awareness to do so at the
appropriate time (Rogers et al., 2000). Compliance is therefore en-
hanced by having signs located near the decision point, which is gen-
erally close to the site of the hazard (Bradford & McIntyre, 2007; Lackey
& Ham, 2003). Another powerful influence over warning compliance is
visitors’ perception of the credibility of the source of the message
(Espiner, 1999; Williams & Noyes, 2007). Key aspects influencing
credibility are attractiveness and expertise (McCool & Braithwaite,
1992).
Where warnings include injunctions not to do particular things,
‘circle slash negation symbols’ can be effective so long as the slash does
not conceal critical features of the image (Murray et al., 1998). As a
result, asymmetrical symbols are generally preferred. Use of the solid
colour red has also been found to be more effective than translucent or
partial slashes (Murray et al., 1998).
Compliance has also been found to be enabled when the intended
136
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 25 (2019) 132–142
behavioural response is clearly described or modelled by others
(Hatfield, Williamson, Sherker, Brander, & Hayen, 2012; Laughery &
Wogalter, 2014; Littlefair & Buckley, 2008; Rogers et al., 2000). The
opposite also applies, with non-compliance increasing where other
visitors are observed failing to comply, with no apparent consequences
(Espiner, 2001).
4.2. BPP set 2: Associated communication and interpretation in national
parks
While safety signs have certain advantages as a form of remote
supervision in national parks, they also have limitations. Signs gen-
erally address only the on-site component of a visit and as a result play
little or no role in establishing visitor expectations or influencing trip
preparation. Communications more broadly relevant to visitor safety in
parks include images created by media and marketing, knowledge and
attitudes formed through formal and informal education, and a range of
other direct and indirect influences. Best practice principles for broader
safety communications derived from the literature are outlined below,
and summarised in Table 2.
There is support for agency coordinated multi-media approaches to
safety messages about particular themes such as crocodiles, dingoes or
hazardous swimming areas (e.g. Beckmann & Savage, 2003; Stewart
et al., 2000), although these approaches can be resource-intensive and
tend to be used only where issues are severe and widespread. The
prevalence of alternative sources of trip planning information such as
commercial organisations can offer additional channels for commu-
nication (Manning, 2003). However, in the absence of agency input,
these may sometimes establish inappropriate expectations.
Coordinated communication has potential to use the person vari-
ables identified by Rogers et al. (2000). Planning ways to reach specific
audiences at different stages of development (Manning, 2003) can in-
crease communication effectiveness and efficiency. It is important to
see this as part of an overall approach, establishing knowledge, atti-
tudes and behaviours that can then be triggered or reinforced using on-
site signs.
Best practice principles for associated communications overlap with
established BPPs for interpretation (Ham, 1992; Ham et al., 2007;
Moscardo, Ballantyne, & Hughes, 2003; Skibins, Powell, & Stern, 2012;
Tilden, 1957), some of which can readily be applied to issues of visitor
safety. In particular, a more interpretive approach to signage can focus
on social norms regarding particular behaviours or desired actions
(Skibins et al., 2012). It can also utilise affective persuasive messaging
(Skibins et al., 2012), for example by using narrative stories to appeal to
empathy (Hall, Ham & Lackey, 2001; Parkin & Morris, 2005).
Forms of communication other than safety signs may also be needed
to provide sufficient information to convince visitors about levels of
risk, particularly in unfamiliar environments. The use of statistics about
accidents can highlight risks and can aid the recall of safety information
(Conzola & Wogalter, 1998). Where the level of risk is changeable,
dynamic features may be incorporated and messages adjusted to reflect
the conditions, although this generates a need for clear and reliable
protocols. Interactive elements that generate a visitor response can
potentially take this further by engaging mindfulness (Moscardo, 1999).
Building on an earlier observation that compliance is enabled by
role modelling appropriate behaviours, commercial operators, volun-
teers and others regularly active in problem areas can be trained to
demonstrate and promote safe actions (Manning, 2003). Personal
contact with visitors, and even just the presence of rangers or other
(preferably uniformed) employees, has also been found to deter in-
appropriate behaviour (Swearingen & Johnson, 1995). Ultimately it
may be necessary to redirect visitors away from problem areas with
clear statements of safe alternatives to popular but potentially ha-
zardous activities or locations.
R. Saunders et al.
4.3. BPP set 3: Visitor risk management in national parks
Finally, it is worth considering the context in which all of this is
occurring – protected areas – and the purposes of safety signage in the
first instance. Safety messaging is provided to protect both visitors and
park management agencies, in ways that preserve and enhance the
visitor experience. Visitors seek positive outdoor recreation experiences
(Gstaettner et al., 2017), and risk mitigation should not detract from
visitors’ enjoyment or satisfaction.
Park agency risk management systems typically address policy, risk
identification processes, training, incident reporting and claims man-
agement, inspections and legal advice (Buckley et al., 2001). Manage-
ment of visitor risk is generally integrated into these systems, which
may be hierarchical and multi-faceted. With multiple state-level park
agencies, approaches to risk management vary throughout Australia.
Over the years, coordinated benchmarking and best practice reviews
have facilitated information sharing and encouraged some consistency,
particularly in approaches to tour operators (ANZECC, 1998; Buckley
et al., 2001).
Variations between agencies evident at the level of risk management
procedures and guidelines can reflect differences in the nature of ha-
zards, the legal and political context and other issues. While best
practice can be situational and no single unified approach is re-
commended by the authors, we believe that the risk management
context is a key component of best practice for communicating safety
messages to visitors. Best practice principles for visitor risk manage-
ment systems in national parks derived from literature and discussions
with park staff from QPWS and PV are outlined below and summarised
in Table 3.
Park managers have a legal duty to take reasonable care to avoid
foreseeable risks of injury, and to inform visitors about hazards, parti-
cularly where they are not obvious (Kozlowski, 1988). Broadly, parks
are expected to be reasonably safe for visitors to use, but visitors must
also act reasonably under the conditions prevailing in the park, in-
cluding the warnings provided (Kozlowski, 1988). In determining what
is considered reasonable, the foreseeability of risks and the adequacy of
warnings and other interventions are central.
A process of continuous improvement is built into overall corporate
risk management processes such as that articulated in AS/NZS ISO
31000: Risk Management – Principles and guidelines (ASA, 2009). Pro-
cedures that regularly review the risk context of parks and visitor
precincts are vital, because natural settings and their use can change
over time. Risk management procedures, guidelines and tools should
provide practical advice to parks staff and specifically address visitor
risk issues. Examples of incidents from similar situations elsewhere can
provide insights into the effectiveness of warnings and whether other
hazard reduction interventions are required. While a proactive ap-
proach is preferred, even the most unlikely event is foreseeable after it
has occurred.
An agency's response following a serious incident (the focus of this
study) should always include an investigation into the circumstances of
the incident, seeking to fully understand its causes. A range of options
for modifying the circumstances should be considered, and any changes
that are made as a consequence should be monitored and evaluated.
Potentially more important than questions about what happened in a
serious incident are those around why it happened. A detailed under-
standing of factors influencing visitor expectations and preparation can
help address underlying causes of incidents. It may be possible to en-
gage with stakeholders and alter inappropriate expectations of safety in
protected areas, alternatively it may be possible to relocate dangerous
activities to better locations.
Effective communication of safety information is particularly ne-
cessary where hazards are unfamiliar and potential consequences se-
vere. To sustain this form of remote supervision, signs must be regularly
inspected and maintained. As conditions or circumstances change, they
may also need to be adjusted. Case law shows it is important to look
137
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 25 (2019) 132–142
beyond standards and to consider the unique aspects of each situation.
For example in 2002 a branch falling from a dead tree at a remote
camping site swung wide and landed on a tent that had been set up
away from overhanging limbs. A camper sleeping in the tent was left
with severe and permanent brain injuries. While on-site signage was
compliant with relevant Australian Standards and warned of falling
branches, the park agency was judged to be liable, and damages of $6
million were awarded against it (Collins, 2008). In this particular case,
signs have subsequently been reviewed and modified as per BPP 3h, the
aim of which is to ensure that an agency continues to be vigilant and to
respond in ways that reduce or eliminate the occurrence of future in-
cidents.
5. Field-testing the best practice principles
As outlined in Section 3, formal field-testing of the first set of best
practice principles was undertaken. This section firstly provides general
reflections on the application of the BPPs in this way. This is followed
by subsections that describe the findings in more detail. Observations
and reflections on BPP sets 2 and 3 are presented in the remaining
subsections.
5.1. Efficacy of BPP set 1 for evaluating on-site safety signs in national
parks
The BPPs for on-site safety signs presented in Table 1 were used to
evaluate more than one hundred signs in eight park contexts in two
states. Used as a checklist (i.e. presence or absence of each BPP item),
they were found to be suitable for both benchmarking and for evalua-
tion, and also provided useful insights into the likely performance of
each sign. While no visitor observation or effectiveness surveys were
carried out, agency staff participating in the internal audit for Parks
Victoria found the BPPs easy to use and the evaluations derived from
their use both meaningful and practical.
Having four overarching components against which to assess each
of the four BPP components (noticeability, encoding, comprehension
and compliance) for each sign seemed to enhance agency staff con-
fidence in the tool. The items appeared to be intuitively understood and
accepted by staff applying them, and generated insights and useful
discussion about the content of each safety sign and how it might be
improved.
The main difficulty encountered in applying the BPPs to assessing a
particular sign was that sometimes a sign only partially met the de-
scription of an item involving several distinct elements (e.g. 1g, 1i and
1l in Table 1). In those instances a judgement was made as to whether
the item was predominantly achieved. Somewhat subjective judgements
also needed to be made on some other items (e.g. ‘where appropriate’ in
1h). These limitations were not felt to diminish the usefulness of the
BPPs, but did suggest the fine-tuning of some items to improve their
comprehension, application and reliability. Here and possibly else-
where, a simple rating scale could be trialled that would replace the
potentially overly simplistic “presence or absence” approach used in the
present study.
5.2. Findings: Best performing on-site warning signs
In broad terms the vast majority of on-site safety signs inspected
were very noticeable, with most meeting all four BPPs (1a to 1d). Our
decision to emphasise items associated with sign location, placement
and orientation over items associated with design seemed to be sup-
ported in discussions with park staff and other observers during field
assessments of noticeability. The best signs from QPWS also met all of
the BPPs for encoding (1e to 1h), comprehension (1i to 1l) and com-
pliance (1m to 1p). See Fig. 1 for an example of a QPWS sign that meets
all 16 of the BPPs for on-site safety signs.
Most of the signs inspected from PV also met all four BPPs for
R. Saunders et al.
Fig. 1. QPWS Danger sign (QPWS).
noticeability. One difference between the two agencies is that PV's on-
site safety signs consistently avoid languages other than English (1h),
but otherwise they meet the criteria for ease of encoding. The best signs
from PV also meet all of the criteria for comprehension, but some (as
shown in Fig. 2) did not include circle slash negation symbols. The best-
performing PV signs meet 14 of the 16 BPPs. The study team was sa-
tisfied that both management agencies are promoting the use of highly
effective safety signs.
5.3. Findings: Potentially problematic use of safety signs
A relatively common issue is the need to communicate multiple
messages to visitors as they enter a park or site. In these situations there
is evidence of messages being separated (1b), of using graphic visual
demonstrations of hazards (1e), and of restricting individual signs to a
small number of messages (1j). However, signs are sometimes grouped
relatively close together, and visitors arriving by vehicle and driving
past even at a low speed simply would not be able to encode or com-
prehend all of the messages (see Fig. 3).
As a result of this observation an additional BPP may be required,
dealing with the need for sign planning and a staged presentation of
messages as visitors enter and move around a park. To some extent this
is captured in the idea of overall coordination of communications
(Table 2), however it highlights the importance of coordination among
signs (in space and time or season) as well as coordination between
safety signs and other communication. Further research may be re-
quired to identify what factors are important, perhaps enabling a
minimum distance between signs to be established, together with a
Fig. 2. PV Warning sign (Rob Saunders).
138
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 25 (2019) 132–142
Fig. 3. Too many signs in one place? (Rob Saunders).
maximum number within one entry space, and their most effective
order (e.g. should safety signs always be first?).
A second issue that is less common but unfortunately is encouraged
by some standards and manuals (e.g. Department of Justice, Victoria,
2006) is the tendency to place too many messages on one sign (see
Fig. 4). Signs like this tend to be noticeable and contain elements that
are readily encoded individually, however by failing to meet BPP 1j the
full suite of messages on such signs becomes difficult to comprehend.
Here too, a substantial improvement could be made by better planning
and a staged presentation of messages as visitors enter and move
around a site. There is also scope for further research on how many
messages can be absorbed effectively from one sign in different park
situations.
The sign illustrated in Fig. 4 draws attention to another more subtle
issue with PV's compliance with the Department of Justice, Victoria
(2006) style manual. In these signs the colours red and yellow are used
essentially as corporate colours rather than as a risk level indicator (BPP
1i). The extent to which this may be confusing to visitors is not known,
and it is possible that there are advantages in terms of noticeability that
counteract the disadvantages associated with comprehension. Given the
degree of influence of this style of sign, the study team felt that the use
of colour (i.e. corporate colours and safety warning colours) as well as
the number of messages per sign, warrants further research.
Fig. 4. Too many messages on one sign? (Rob Saunders).
R. Saunders et al.
5.4. Observations and reflections on the application of BPP set 2 to
associated communication and interpretation in national parks
In the current study, evaluation of associated communications and
interpretation was not a major focus. Nonetheless, we include some
field-based observations and examples that are relevant to the second
set of BPPs as presented in Table 2.
The provision of pre-visit information by park management agen-
cies has undergone a quiet revolution in the last decade or so. With the
increasing pervasiveness of electronic communication, it is relatively
easy for park management agencies to incorporate pre-visit safety
messages on their web-sites. Unfortunately there is little evidence that
access to this information improves visitor safety. Influencing visitor
behaviour may require a more complex and coordinated approach.
In their campaign to address the issue of Fraser Island visitors being
attacked by dingoes, QPWS pioneered the application of persuasive
communication theory to behavioural change in parks. The Be Dingo
Smart! Campaign is a good example of the successful application of
associated communication and interpretation. It used appropriate
media and communication techniques targeting specific audiences, in
addition to common approaches including traditional signs and bro-
chures. Messages were supported by role modelling, training of com-
mercial tourism operators, regulation and enforcement (Beckman &
Savage, 2003). In retrospect, the entire tourism industry around Fraser
Island seems to have actively cooperated with this program, perhaps
sharing a concern about the potential negative impact of high profile
incidents. Visitor injuries and property damage due to dingoes de-
creased, although a fatal incident with a child occurred in April 2001. It
is not clear to what extent this incident enhanced the resourcing of the
campaign, but a subsequent independent evaluation (Beckman &
Savage, 2003, p. 8) reported “notable behavioural changes in 2001 and
2002 with respect to [visitors] feeding dingoes, interacting with them,
storing food and rubbish and the supervision of children.”
In the current study, the following observations in relation to one
particular Queensland site illustrate some of the challenges and op-
portunities around coordinating safety signage with other relevant
visitor communication. The first observations relate to the con-
sequences of inconsistency between what is presented by third-party
communication not controlled by park management agencies (parti-
cularly pre-visit) and on-site safety communication by the management
agency.
A feature of Mossman Gorge in the Daintree National Park is the
crystal-clear water cascading among large granite boulders that have
been washed down from the hills during times of heavy flood. The main
risk to visitors at Mossman Gorge is the strength of the current in this
river after rain, which can be significantly stronger than expected from
the general appearance of the river. The inquest into the death of a
Taiwanese tourist in February 2014 noted that:
The water just adjacent to the beach is invariably calm and safe to
swim in. There is also a sandy beach on the other side of the creek. A
few metres out from the beach the water becomes deeper and much
faster flowing… The water flowing through the boulders creates
rapids and strong currents (OSCQ, 2014, p. 2).
QPWS staff interviewed by the study team noted that tourism in-
terests tend to promote swimming at Mossman Gorge, but rarely
mention its risks. As a typical example, during the study period in 2015
tourism promoters distributed 133,000 copies of a booklet Discover
Paradise as an insert in a national weekend newspaper. This included an
A4 sized full-page colour image of bathing and swimming at Mossman
Gorge (Fig. 5). Best practice principles (2a, 2b, 2c and 2g) suggest en-
gaging with tourism promoters in order to encourage more appropriate
visitor expectations and swimming safety messages at this site.
In relation to the same site, a second set of observations relate to
seasonal and other temporal variations in safety and what can be
achieved through stakeholder engagement. Visitors encounter the
139
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 25 (2019) 132–142
dynamic Water Conditions Warning Sign at the Mossman Gorge Centre
(Fig. 6) before entering the national park. The Mossman Gorge Centre is
managed by the local Kuku Yalanji Aboriginal community, which also
operates a shuttle bus into the Gorge.
The effectiveness of this sign is yet to be formally evaluated, but it
reflects an attempt to engage with stakeholders to help manage visitor
expectations and preparation (BPP 3f) and to adjust signs based on
changing conditions (BPP 3h). The study team understands that QPWS
has had input into the protocols under which the water conditions sign
is changed from ‘Swim with caution’ to ‘Swimming is not advised’ or
‘No swimming’. It is evident that a good working relationship has been
established between QPWS and the Mossman Gorge Centre, and the
continued success of this relationship is clearly important for the future
success of tourism in the area as well as for visitor safety.
5.5. Observations and reflections on the application of BPP set 3 to visitor
risk management systems in national parks
As with the BPPs for coordinating safety signs with associated
communication, evaluation of the BPPs for visitor risk management
systems was not an objective of the study. However, some general ob-
servations can be made and suggestions offered for future refinements
of this third set of BPPs as presented in Table 3.
QPWS and PV both have risk management policies that are com-
pliant with relevant Australian Standards. Both agencies are also
working towards developing more detailed procedures to specifically
address distinct aspects of visitor risk management important to them.
As mentioned earlier, both agencies also have comprehensive sign
manuals and update them on a regular basis. However, since Buckley
et al. (2001), there seems to have been little if any formal bench-
marking of risk management approaches between Australian park
management agencies. It is likely that all Australian park management
agencies could gain from better coordination and sharing of experience
in visitor risk management.
As part of their risk management systems, QPWS and PV prepare
Emergency Management Plans (EMPs) for parks and highly popular
visitor sites. EMPs are used to guide the management of serious in-
cidents, and also incorporate processes of review after any such in-
cident. Field staff in both States demonstrated a commitment to
working with local emergency services, and occasionally with visitors
involved in serious incidents, in order to better understand the causes of
incidents and to explore future options. EMPs may well be a powerful
tool for continuous improvement of visitor risk management, and could
be a useful focus for development and comparisons between States.
Espiner (2001) has observed that there is a tendency for legal, fi-
nancial and reputational dimensions of risk to be more strongly per-
ceived by senior park managers, while field staff can feel personally
responsible for visitor safety and well-being. Our discussions in both
States support the idea that field staff can feel high levels of personal
responsibility in relation to serious incidents. However, we also noted
that field staff can be particularly sensitive to the reputation of certain
sites, particularly in the eyes of local emergency service workers. One
ranger confessed that he was ‘very worried’ that the next time he calls
for emergency assistance he will be asked ‘Not that same waterfall
again?’
It appears that emergency services workers are generally seen as
important stakeholders in relation to operational aspects of incident
response, and are often invited back to the scene of an incident to assist
with debriefing and review after the event. However they are less likely
to be involved in detailed considerations about options to prevent fu-
ture incidents. BPP 3f suggests it may be worth exploring the involve-
ment of a wider range of stakeholders in the risk assessment of sites,
and the identification of specific audiences for risk management mes-
sages. This involvement may help to develop a shared commitment by
parks staff and emergency services personnel to influencing visitor ex-
pectations and preparation.
R. Saunders et al.
Fig. 5. Tourism promotion of bathing and swimming at Mossman Gorge (from a promotional booklet Discover Paradise distributed with The Weekend Australian
newspaper on 2 May 2015).
Fig. 6. Dynamic Water Conditions Warning Sign at Mossman Gorge Centre
(Andrew Growcock).
6. Implications for management and conclusions
Clearly, on-site safety signs are only part of the answer to visitor risk
management in national parks, but they are nevertheless a critical
component. Ideally, visitors should arrive at a national park conversant
with the natural hazards it contains and equipped to manage the level
of risk they choose to accept as part of their desired experience. In
reality, the tourism industry is fragmented and it may not always be in
140
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 25 (2019) 132–142
the interests of all stakeholders involved with protected areas to deliver
important and accurate visitor safety messages at the most opportune
time.
This paper has presented a set of best practice principles for safety
signs in national parks (Table 1) that can be used both for bench-
marking and evaluation. By being structured to reflect theories of ef-
fective communication, these BPPs are not only theoretically sound but
also generate practical insights regarding why and how on-site safety
signs perform the way they do. In addition, we have presented a set of
best practice principles for associated communication and interpreta-
tion in national parks (Table 2), recognising the broader principles of
persuasive communication. And finally, we have included a set of best
practice principles for visitor risk management in national parks
(Table 3), in recognition that signage and communication are part of an
overall system for managing visitor risk in protected areas.
The BPPs for on-site signs (Table 1) focus on warning variables
(Rogers et al., 2000). Where there is more detailed knowledge of person
variables, a more nuanced approach may be possible, as person vari-
ables influence the effectiveness of warning variables. Familiarity, age
and hazard perception are the most frequently listed person variables in
the more comprehensive analysis presented by Rogers et al. (2000, p.
105). In most instances these should be the person variables considered
first. Insights into the target audience and its person variables allowed
QPWS to develop specific interpretive safety signs targeting young
males in relevant locations (Parkin & Morris, 2005).
In the case of national parks that attract a lot of international
tourists, consideration needs to be given to how place of residence may
contribute not only to unfamiliarity with local conditions, but also to
differences in the way individuals assess their own personal abilities
and even in the degree to which they are likely to read, let alone
comply, with safety signs. For some, being in an unfamiliar environ-
ment and on holidays may lead to lesser or greater attention to safety
communication and indeed differing levels of risk-taking. More re-
search is needed to assess the impact of place of residence (including
nationality) before determining whether audience-targeted strategies
are warranted.
Field-testing of the BPPs in eight parks in two Australian States and
on more than one hundred individual safety signs suggests that they can
offer considerable practical value to protected area management
R. Saunders et al.
agencies. In their current format, the best practice principles are best
viewed as a qualitative tool because of the range and variability of is-
sues involved in national parks. It would be valuable to undertake
further research to clearly establish the validity of the BPPs as measures
of the variables identified. While the current checklist (presence/ab-
sence) format was found to be limiting, it could be developed, through
further empirical research, into a reliable and validated instrument that
may include rating scales.
Further research is also required in relation to the presentation of
multiple messages. How many messages can be communicated through
one sign, the range of variables involved and how they operate in dif-
ferent practical situations, and guidelines regarding the presentation of
different messages at different locations throughout a park are areas
where current knowledge is limited and practice is ineffective. In
broader terms it would be particularly valuable to identify ways to
influence visitors’ expectations prior to arrival at a park. This could
address the issue of visitors arriving with inappropriate expectations of
activities in natural areas and also with a lack of detailed knowledge
about local conditions that may compromise their safety.
Fatalities and serious injuries to visitors in national parks are tragic
for all concerned and are often avoidable. The authors hope that this
study can make a useful contribution to reducing visitor risk by en-
hancing the capacity of park staff and managers to assess their own
practice by applying BPPs for safety signs. Through this, it is anticipated
that visitors’ awareness of natural hazards and their significance in
protected areas may be improved while continuing to facilitate enjoy-
ment and appreciation of our most remarkable natural environments.
Acknowledgements
This paper draws on findings from two research projects in Australia
which were funded by the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and
Parks Victoria respectively. The authors acknowledge the contributions
of staff from both agencies who have contributed to this research, as
well as researchers and protected area management staff from around
the world who provided relevant information and resources to inform
this research.
References
ANZECC Working Group on National Parks and Protected Area Management (1998).
ANZECC benchmarking and best practice program: visitor risk management & public lia-
bility. Prepared by WA Department of Conservation and Land Management.
ASA (2009). AS/NZS ISO 31000: Risk management – Principles and guidelines.
Beckmann, E. & Savage, G. (2003). Evaluation of Dingo education strategy and programs for
Fraser Island and literature review: Communicating to the public about potentially dan-
gerous wildlife in natural settings. Report to QPWS (unpublished).
Bradford, L. E. A., & McIntyre, N. (2007). Off the beaten track: Messages as a means of
reducing social trail use at St. Lawrence Islands National Park. Journal of Park and
Recreation Administration, 25, 1–21.
Brookes, A. (2003). Outdoor education fatalities in Australia 1960–2002. Part 1.
Summary of incidents and introduction to fatality analysis. Australian Journal of
Outdoor Education, 7(1), 20–35.
Brookes, A. (2007). Research update: Outdoor education fatalities in Australia. Australian
Journal of Outdoor Education, 11(1), 3–9.
Brown, G., Koth, B., Kreag, G., & Weber, D. (2006). Managing Australian's protected areas:
A review of visitor management models, frameworks and processes. Sustainable Tourism
CRC.
Braun, C. C. & Silver, N. C. (1995). Interaction of warning label features: Determining the
contributions of three warning characteristics. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting (pp. 984–988). Santa Monica, CA: Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Braun, C. C., Kline, P. B., & Clayton Silver, N. C. (1995). The influence of color on warning
label perceptions. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15(3), 179–187.
Buckley, R., Witting, N., & Guest, M. (2001). Managing people in Australian parks: 3. Risk
management and public liability. Australia: Cooperative Research Centre for
Sustainable Tourism.
Chapanis, A. (1994). Hazards associated with three signal words and four colours on
warning signs. Ergonomics, 37, 265–275.
Collins, S. J. (2008). Injured camper gets $6m damages. The Sydney Morning Herald, 29
July, viewed 4 January 2018 〈http://www.smh.com.au/national/injured-camper-
gets-6m-damages-20080728-3max.html〉.
Conzola, V. C. & Wogalter, M. S. (1998). Consumer product warnings: Effects of injury
141
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 25 (2019) 132–142
statistics on recall subjective evaluations. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society
42nd Annual Meeting (pp. 559–563). Santa Monica: Human Factors Society.
Department of Justice, Victoria (2006). National Aquatic and Recreational Signage Style
Manual (3rd Ed).
Espiner, S. R. (1999). The use and effect of hazard warning signs: Managing visitor safety at
Franz Josef and Fox Glaciers. Science for Conservation. 108. Wellington: Department of
Conservation.
Espiner, S. R. (2001). The phenomenon of risk and its management in natural resource re-
creation and tourism settings: A case study of Fox and Franz Josef Glaciers, Westland
National Park, New Zealand (Ph.D. Thesis)Lincoln University〈https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/27814720_〉.
Gstaettner, A. M., Lee, D., & Rodger, K. (2016). The concept of risk in nature-based
tourism and recreation – a systematic literature review. Current Issues in Tourism.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2016.1244174.
Gstaettner, A. M., Rodger, K., & Lee, D. (2017). Visitor perspectives of risk management in
a natural tourism setting: An application of the theory of planned behaviour. Journal
of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2017.04.001.
Hall, T. E., Ham, S. H., & Lackey, B. K. (2001). Comparative evaluation of the attention
capture and holding power of novel signs aimed at park visitors. Journal of
Interpretation Research, 15(1), 14–36.
Ham, S. H. (1992). Environmental interpretation: A practical guide for people with big ideas
and small budgets. Golden: Fulcrum.
Ham, S. H., Brown, T. J., Curtis, J., Weiler, B., Hughes, M., & Poll, M. (2007). Promoting
persuasion in protected areas: A guide for managers. Developing strategic communication to
influence visitor behavior. Southport, Queensland, Australia: Sustainable Tourism
Cooperative Research Centre.
Hatfield, J., Williamson, A., Sherker, S., Brander, R., & Hayen, A. (2012). Development
and evaluation of an intervention to reduce rip current related beach drowning.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 46, 45–51.
Hellier, E., Aldrich, K., Wright, D. B., Daunt, D., & Edworthy, J. (2007). A multi dimen-
sional analysis of warning signal words. Journal of Risk Research, 10(3), 323–338.
Kozlowski, J. C. (1988). In search of the adequate warning sign: Communication is the
key. Parks & Recreation, 23(10), 20–23.
Lackey, B. K., & Ham, S. H. (2003). Final report: human element assessment focused on
human-bear conflicts in Yosemite National Park (Report to Yosemite National Park,
February 2003)Department of Resource Recreation and Tourism, University of Idaho.
Laughery, K. R., Sr., & Young, S. L. (1991). An eye scan analysis of accessing product
warning information. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting
(pp. 585–589). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Laughery, K. R., & Wogalter, M. S. (2014). A three-stage model summarizes product
warning and environmental sign research. Safety Science, 61, 3–10.
Littlefair, C., & Buckley, R. (2008). Interpretation reduces ecological impacts of visitors to
world heritage site. Ambio, 37(5), 338–341 (Retrieved from: 〈http://www98.griffith.
edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/21269/51881_1.pdf?sequence=1〉).
Manning, R. (2003). Emerging principles for using information/education in wilderness
management. International Journal of Wilderness, 9(1), 20–27.
Matthews, B., Andronaco, R., & Adams, A. (2014). Warning signs at beaches: Do they
work? Safety Science, 62, 312–318 (Retrieved from: 〈http://www.sciencedirect.com.
ezproxy.usq.edu.au/science/article/pii/S0925753513002129〉).
McCool, S. F., & Braithwaite, A. M. (1992). Persuasive messages and safety hazards in
dispersed and natural recreation settings. In M. Manfredo (Ed.). Influencing human
behaviour (pp. 293–326). Champaign, Illinois: Sagamore Publishing Inc.
Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our
capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 101(2), 343–352.
Moscardo, G. (1999). Making visitors mindful: Principles for creating sustainable visitor ex-
periences through effective communication. Champagne, Ill: Sagamore Publishing.
Moscardo, G., Ballantyne, R., & Hughes, K. (2003). Interpretive signs – talking to visitors
through text. In T. Griffin, & R. Harris (Eds.). Current research, future strategies, brid-
ging uncertainty (pp. 500–514). Sydney: University of Technology Sydney.
Moscardo, G., Woods, B., & Saltzer, R. (2004). The role of interpretation in wildlife
tourism. In K. Higginbottom (Ed.). Wildlife tourism: impacts, management and planning
(pp. 231–251). Altona, Victoria: Common Ground Publishing. 〈http://
researchonline.jcu.edu.au/7500/〉.
Moscardo, G., Gooch, M., Tomas, L., & Barnett, B. (2010). Review of the effectiveness of the
Croc Wise education campaign (Final Report June 2010)Townsville: James Cook
University.
Murray, L. A., Magurno, A. B., Glover, B. L., & Wogalter, M. S. (1998). Prohibitive pic-
torials: Evaluations of different circle-slash negation symbols. International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics, 22, 473–482.
OSCQ (2014). Findings of inquest into the death of Che-Wei Su. Queensland Australia: Office
of the State Coroner.
Parkin, D., & Morris, K. (2005). Pete's story: interpreting the consequences of risk-taking
behaviour. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 4, 139–150.
Parks Canada (2007). Exterior Signage Standards and Guidelines. Ottawa: Parks Canada.
Parsons, L. (2014). Coroner recommends safety review of Mossman Gorge after death of a
Taiwanese tourist, Cairns Post, 15 July, viewed 13 April 2015, 〈http://www.
cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns/coroner-recommends-safety-review-of-mossman-
gorge-after-death-of-a-taiwanese-tourist/news-story/
57f998d841188251259808d960bb571c〉.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary
approaches. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In
L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 123–205). New
York: Academic Press.
Rogers, W. A., Lamson, N., & Rousseau, G. K. (2000). Warning research: An integrated
perspective. Human Factors, 42(1), 102–139.
R. Saunders et al.
Scherrer, P., Moyle, B. D., Weiler, B., & Wilson, E. (2016). Stepping stones to sustaining an
iconic destination. CAUTHE2016, 9-11 February, Sydney, Australia.
Skibins, J. C., Powell, R. B., & Stern, M. J. (2012). Exploring empirical support for in-
terpretation's best practices. Journal of Interpretation Research, 17(1), 25–44.
Standards Australia (n.d.). What is a Standard? viewed 27 December 2017, 〈http://www.
standards.org.au/StandardsDevelopment/What_is_a_Standard〉.
Stewart, W., Cole, D. N., Manning, R. E., Valiere, W., Taylor, J., & Lee, M. (2000).
Preparing for a day hike at Grand Canyon: What information is useful? In D. N. Cole,
S. F. McCool, W. T. Borrie, & J. O’Louglin (Eds.). Wilderness science in a time of change
conference (pp. 221–225). Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Research Station.
Swearingen, T. C., & Johnson, D. R. (1995). Visitors' responses to uniformed park em-
ployees. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 13(10), 73–85.
Tilden, F. (1957). Interpreting our heritage (3rd ed.). Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina Press.
Tinker, M. A. (1963). Legibility of Print. Iowa: Iowa State University Press.
Tuler, S., Golding, D., & Krueger, R. J. (2002). A review of the literature for a comprehensive
study of visitor safety in the national park system. Worcester, MA: Clark University.
(accessed 18 May 2015) http://www.californiatrails.org/documents/
NationalParkServiceSafety.pdf.
Walle, A. H. (1997). Pursuing risk or insight: Marketing adventures. Annals of Tourism
Research, 24(2), 265–282.
Washington Post (2015). Forget bears: Here’s what really kills people at national parks. 12
August 2015, From: 〈https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/
12/forget-bears-heres-what-really-kills-people-at-national-parks/〉 Accessed 10
August 2016.
Weber, K. (2001). Outdoor adventure tourism: A review of research approaches. Annals of
Tourism Research, 28(2), 360–377.
Weiler, B., Zeppel, H., Saunders, R., & Scherrer, P. (2015). A review of safety signage for
Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service: Report 1: Literature review (Report to the
142
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 25 (2019) 132–142
Queensland Parks and Wildlife Services)Coolangatta, Qld: School of Business and
Tourism, Southern Cross University. 〈https://works.bepress.com/betty_weiler/
109/〉.
Western Australia Department of Parks and Wildlife (2014). Hazard sign manual. Perth:
DPaW.
Wheildon, C. (2004). Type and layout: Are you communicating or just making pretty shapes?
(2nd ed.). Hastings, Victoria: Worsley Press.
Whittlesey, L. H. (2014). Death in Yellowstone: Accidents and foolhardiness in the first na-
tional park (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Roberts Rinehart.
Williams, D. J., & Noyes, J. M. (2007). How does our perception of risk influence decision-
making? Implications for the design of risk information. Theoretical Issues in
Ergonomics Science, 8(1), 1–35.
Winter, P. (2006). The impact of normative message types on off-trail hiking. Journal of
Interpretation Research, 11(1), 35–52.
Wogalter, M. S., Jarrad, S. W., & Simson, S. N. (1995). Influence of warning label signal
words on perceived hazard level. Human Factors, 36(3), 547–556.
Wogalter, M. S., & Laughery, K. R. (1996). WARNING! Sign and label effectiveness.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 33–37.
Worboys, G. L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S., & Pulsford, I. (Eds.). (2015).
Protected area governance and management. Canberra: ANU Press.
Young, S. L., Wogalter, M. S., Laughery, K. R., Magurno, A., & Lovvoll, D. (1995). Relative
order and space allocation of message components in hazard warning signs. In:
Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 39th Annual Meeting (pp. 969–973). Santa
Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Young, S.L. & Wogalter, M.S. (1998). Relative importance of different verbal components
in conveying hazard-level information in warnings. In: Proceedings of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting. Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA, pp. 1063–1067.
Zanon, D. (2007). Parks visitor segmentation report. Melbourne: Parks Victoria
(Unpublished technical report).