Royal Alberta Museum - Educational/Interpretive Evaluation Form

Educational/Interpretive Evaluation Form Text Image

This evaluation has a maximum score of 55 points (45 points in cases of a 'not applicable' response to question #2).

#1. Visual Impact

Visual impact is defined as the extent to which a feature can be seen easily and clearly by both professionals and the general public.

• (1) weak impact (difficult to discern feature within its surroundings)

• (5) moderate impact (some of feature can be viewed clearly)

• (10) strong impact (feature can be seen easily and clearly and is impressive)

#2. Degree of Completeness

A feature is evaluated according to the extent to which the characteristic attributes are present. For example, a reef site that includes platform, reefal, and basin sediments provides greater impact and understanding of the geological history of the area than does a site with only platform sediments.

• (1) low (fewer than 20% of expected characteristics are present, not complete enough to interpret)

• (5) moderate

• (10) high (more than 80% of expected characteristics are present)

• not applicable (N/A)

#3. Accessibility

This is evaluated in terms of ease of access to the site and/or to the viewpoint. Features that can be viewed in their entirety, either close up or from a distance, and that are easily accessed have greater interpretative value.

• (1) low (access to site and/or viewpoint is difficult, no developed trail or road)

• (5) moderate (somewhat developed trail or road, only somewhat restricted)

• (10) high (site and/or viewpoint can be reached easily)

#4. Multiple Features

A site that contains a number of geological features, in addition to its primary feature, would have more Educational/Interpretive Value than a site which contains only one.

• (5) Yes

• (0) No

If "yes", please list any extra features you consider relevant for interpretation.

overturned anticline, fossils, rapids

#5. Condition of Site

The site is evaluated according to how human activity, rather than natural processes, has altered or disrupted the area. Examples of disruption include paving, dam building, blasting, logging, mining, vandalism and quarrying. However, occasionally these activities can enhance, rather than detract, from a geological site.

• (1) poor condition (site has been abused by human acitivity, or man-made features or vegetation are obscuring it)

• (5) moderate condition (site is only somewhat disrupted, but the disturbance has not totally masked the original feature)

• (10) outstanding condition (unaltered from its original state, or human intervention has increased visibility)

(Note that the scoring here is opposite to that for Site Condition in the Degree of Threat evaluation).

#6. Sensitivity

Features are rated according to their potential susceptibility to damage due to human influences, and their ability to withstand such damage.

• (10) low sensitivity (feature able to withstand being disturbed, and if disturbed is not altered)

• (5) moderate sensitivity (feature changes with human activities, but with little loss of characteristics)

• (0) high sensitivity (feature easily disturbed and characteristics would be lost)

The following question is awarded no points but is relevant to the development of a management plan.

#7. Proximity

The site or feature is less than a half-hour drive from other interpretive programs, such as those provided by provincial parks, national parks, highway plaques.

• Yes (beneficial)

• No

• Unsure

Total Score for Interpretative Value =