Research areas

Nature interpretation is part of how protected areas and other landscapes are managed and made accessible to people. It can help explain ecological processes and management decisions, but it also communicates particular understandings of what a place is, how it should be used and which values deserve attention.

Research in this area explores, among other things, the historical role of interpretation in national parks, how narratives about forest landscapes are constructed, and how established cultural understandings influence land use. It raises questions about nature interpretation as both communication and an integral part of environmental management.

Questions to explore: Whose knowledge and which narratives are represented when interpreting a landscape? How can nature interpretation help people understand management decisions and trade-offs without obscuring conflicts or presenting particular decisions as self-evident?

Hvengaard G. T., Shultis J., Butler J. R. (2009). The role of interpretation. In Dearden P., Rollins R. (Eds.), Parks and protected areas in Canada: Planning and management (pp. 202–234). Oxford University Press.

Mackintosh B. (1986). Interpretation in the National Park Service: A historical perspective. https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/mackintosh2/index.htm

Derrien, M. M., & Stokowski, P. A. (2016). Discourses of Place: Environmental Interpretation about Vermont Forests. Environmental Communication, 11(2), 276–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1211160

Vanclay, F., & Enticott, G. (2011). The role and functioning of cultural scripts in farming and agriculture. Sociologia ruralis, 51(3), 256-271.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2011.00537.x

Helping people develop personal relationships with natural and cultural landscapes is central to nature interpretation. But what does it mean to have a relationship with nature? Such relationships may involve knowledge and emotional attachment, but also work, everyday experiences, identity, care, grief and mutual dependence.

Research offers different ways of understanding these relationships. Some studies examine nature connectedness and how encounters with nature may influence people's engagement. Others emphasise lived experiences or how people and ecosystems shape one another through everyday practices. Together, these perspectives highlight why nature interpretation needs to recognise that people encounter nature with different experiences and expectations. Even though the term ‘nature interpretation’ is not always explicitly used, these different perspectives can be useful for nature interpreters to broaden their views in their approach and planning of nature interpretation activities.

Questions to explore: What kinds of relationships with nature are encouraged through different forms of nature interpretation? Which relationships risk being overlooked when interpretation starts from a particular idea of what a nature experience should be?

Head, L. (2016). Hope and Grief in the Anthropocene: Re-conceptualising human–nature relations (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315739335

Restall, B., Conrad, E., & Cop, C. (2021). Connectedness to nature: Mapping the role of protected areas. Journal of Environmental Management, 293, 112771.

Fischer, A., & Eastwood, A. (2016). Coproduction of ecosystem services as human–nature interactions—An analytical framework. Land use policy, 52, 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.004

Schweitzer, R and Glab, H and Brymer, E (2018) The human-nature relationship: a phenomenological-relational perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00969

Macaulay, R., Johnson, K., Lee, K., & Williams, K. (2025). Assessing different levels of psychological engagement with nature: A scoping review of experimental studies. Journal of Environmental Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102623

Powell, R. B., Vezeau, S. L., Stern, M. J., Moore, D. W. D., & Wright, B. A. (2018). Does interpretation influence elaboration and environmental behaviors? Environmental Education Research, 24(6), 875–888.

Nature interpretation can be more than the communication of information. It can also create opportunities for dialogue about how nature should be understood, used and managed. This becomes particularly important when people have different experiences, interests and values, or when decisions about nature give rise to conflict.

Swedish research on communication and democracy in nature conservation has examined the conditions for dialogue and deliberation, including in naturum visitor centres. It raises questions about the difference between informing visitors, inviting dialogue and genuinely making space for different perspectives. Creating a meeting place does not necessarily mean that everyone has an equal opportunity to be heard.

Questions to explore: Under what conditions can nature interpretation facilitate dialogue about contested environmental issues? How do the setting, the design of the conversation and relationships between participants influence which perspectives are heard?

Caselunghe, E., Bergeå, H. & von Essen, E. (2019). Public Spheres for Deliberation on Nature? Democratic Qualities of Visitor Centres in Sweden. Journal of Public Deliberation. 15 (1).  https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.316 

Caselunghe, E. (2018). Deliberations on nature: Swedish cases of communication and democracy within nature conservation. Diss. Uppsala: Department of Urban and Rural Development, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Acta Universitatis agriculturae Sueciae 2018:68.  https://pub.epsilon.slu.se/15756/ 

Nature interpretation brings together knowledge about nature with questions of meaning, experience and expression. Scientific knowledge is important, but the choice of stories, images, artistic forms and ways of engaging with a place also influences what people notice and how they interpret their experiences. Research on nature interpretation explores not only what is communicated, but also how interpretation, storytelling and encounters with places shape people’s understanding of and relationships with nature.

Research drawing on hermeneutics, heritage studies and the arts offers perspectives on nature interpretation as an ongoing process of meaning-making rather than simply the transmission of established knowledge. It opens up possibilities for exploring inspiration, creativity and artistic expression, while also raising critical questions about which narratives are constructed and what different approaches claim to achieve.

Questions to explore: What happens when scientific, artistic and experiential ways of understanding nature meet? How can nature interpretation make room for multiple interpretations while remaining grounded in reliable knowledge?

Ablett, P. G., & Dyer, P. K. (2009). Heritage and hermeneutics: towards a broader interpretation of interpretation. Current Issues in Tourism, 12(3), 209-233.

Farley, R., & Pollock, V. L. (2022). Contemporary Art in Heritage Practice: Mapping Its Intentions, Claims, and Complexities. Heritage & Society, 15(3), 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159032X.2022.2126223

Gilson, J., & Kool, R. (2019). The Place of Inspiration in Heritage Interpretation: A Conceptual Analysis. Journal of Interpretation Research, 24(1), 27-48.

Stern, M. J., & Powell, R. B. (2020). Taking stock of interpretation research: Where have we been and where are we heading? Journal of Interpretation Research, 25(2), 65–87.

Direct encounters with nature and landscapes can offer learning opportunities that differ from classroom-based education. At the same time, learning always takes place within social and cultural contexts: people's previous experiences, assumptions and opportunities to spend time outdoors influence how they encounter a place.

Research on environmental interpretation, nature contact and outdoor education therefore raises both pedagogical and critical questions. How can activities be designed to encourage attention, curiosity and reflection? What assumptions do we make about children's and adults' contact with nature? And how can different experiences of a place become a resource for learning rather than an obstacle?

Questions to explore: What do we want participants to learn through nature interpretation, and how? How can nature interpretation accommodate both ecological knowledge and reflection on different ways of understanding and using nature?

Eck, T., An, S. & Choe, Y. (2023). “Environmental interpretation and socio-cognitive mindfulness: A literature review.” Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 44, 100704.

Lisberg Jensen, E. (2011). Humanekologiska perspektiv på barns naturkontakt. In: Mårtensson, F., Lisberg Jensen, E., Söderström, M., & Öhman, J. Den nyttiga utevistelsen? Forskningsperspektiv på naturkontaktens betydelse för barns hälsa och miljöengagemang. (p. 25-50). Naturvårdsverket. Rapport 6407. https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer6400/978-91-620-6407-5.pdf

Lisberg Jensen, E. & Ouis, P. (2008). Contested construction of nature for city fringe outdoor recreation in southern Sweden: The Arrie case. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 4(7). p. 171-182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2008.02.003  

Markwell, K. (1996). Challenging the Pedagogical Basis of Contemporary Environmental Interpretation. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 12, 9–14. doi:10.1017/S0814062600001579

Nature-based integration initiatives often begin with the idea that encounters in nature can foster a sense of community and provide opportunities to become familiar with a new society. At the same time, they can reveal different experiences of landscapes, outdoor recreation and understandings of what it means to have a relationship with nature.

Research on Swedish nature-based integration initiatives has paid particular attention to the role of guides. Guides can create meeting places for people from different backgrounds, but they also navigate tensions between different expectations and ways of relating to nature. This raises questions about who is expected to learn from whom and which norms shape integration activities themselves.

Questions to explore: How can nature interpretation become a space for mutual exchange between different forms of knowledge and experience? When might the ambition to introduce people to Swedish nature also reproduce narrow assumptions about how nature should be experienced and used?

Benedict Singleton at SLU wrote 2020 a research article with the title Interpreting taskscapes: the rituals of guided Nature-Based (Dis)Integration in Sweden. The article presents results from a study about guides' role in nature based integration projects. The author lifts for example how guides with different methods offers meeting places for persons with different backgrounds and guides' roles when it comes to tensions and conflicts. 

Singleton, B. E. (2021). Go to the forest! Exploring the orderings of Swedish nature-based integration. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 4(4), 1560-1582.

Nature Interpretation is often seen as an environmental educational approach in visitor management at nature-based tourism destinations. 

Blye, C., Hvenegaard, G., & Halpenny, E. (2023). Are we creatures of logic or emotions? Investigating the role of attitudes, worldviews, emotions, and knowledge gain from environmental interpretation on behavioural intentions of park visitors. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership, 15(1), 9–28.

Cook, K. J., Hvenegaard, G. T., & Halpenny, E. A. (2021). Visitor perceptions of the outcomes of personal interpretation in Alberta’s Provincial Parks. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 20(1), 49–65.

Ham, S., & Weiler, B. (2007). Isolating the role of on-site interpretation in a satisfying experience. Journal of Interpretation Research, 12(2), 5–24.

Hvenegaard, G. T. (2017). Visitors’ perceived impacts of interpretation on knowledge, attitudes, and behavioural intentions at Miquelon Lake Provincial Park, Alberta, Canada. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 17(1), 79–90.