Interpretive Signage Strategy 2005 - Yukon · A typical Wayside Exhibit interprets features or events on a site to develop a theme or a story and differs from a sign by providing

Yukon Depar tment of TourismHeritage Branch

July 1995Revised March 2005

Inukshuk Planning & DevelopmentIn Association with EDA Collaborative Inc, L ynxpaw Ser vices and Aasman Design Inc.

Interpretive Signage Strategy

Yukon Depar tment of TourismHeritage Branch

July 1995Revised March 2005

Inukshuk Planning & DevelopmentIn Association with EDA Collaborative Inc, L ynxpaw Ser vices and Aasman Design Inc.

Interpretive Signage Strategy

Yukon Interpretive Signage Strategy 1

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51.1 Purpose of the Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . .61.2 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

2.0 Situation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92.1 Program History & Current

Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92.2 Program History Logic . . . . . . . . . . . .102.3 Program Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122.4 Summary of Program Issues . . . . . . .252.5 Interpretation Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

3.0 Interpretive Strategy ProgramFramework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .273.1 Program Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

4.0 Implementation Guidelines . . . .394.1 System Development Policy . . . . . . .394.2 Signage Design & Materials

Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .414.3 Site Inspection & Maintenance

Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .464.4 Capital & Maintenance Cost

Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .474.5 Development & Redevelopment

Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .494.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

Interpretive Signage StrategyTourism Yukon


For

Heritage BranchTourism Yukon

By

Inukshuk Planning & Development

In Association With

EDA Collaborative Inc.Lynxpaw ServicesAasman Design

July 1995

2 Yukon Interpretive Signage Strategy


Executive SummaryThe Government of Yukon erects interpretivesigns to give residents and visitors alike, anawareness of the mosaic of Yukon natural, cul-tural and historic features. They are a simple,cost effective, year-round communicationtechnique to inform, interest and educate theviewer.

The new sign strategy recognizes theDepartment can not work alone. Tourism doesnot have an exclusive program for interpretivesignage. It must work co-operatively withother partners especially the departments ofRenewable Resources and Community &Transportation Services to deliver a cost-effec-tive and informative program.

Key concepts behind the new program logicinclude: accuracy, balance, diversity, flexibilityand representativeness. The program frame-work is organizational by focus, building onwhat currently exists rather than developing anew structure. This reflects the nature of theissues uncovered in the situation analysis andthe general utility of existing signage initiatives.Sign purpose, location, sign/site relationshipsand cost need to be considered together.

The program logic also provides a comprehen-sive framework for new site selection, siterationalization, construction planning and signmaintenance. A new records format has beendeveloped and the existing records convertedto a user-friendly, computerized databaseaccessible to all user departments.

For the first time, guidelines for site furnishingssuch as garbage receptacles and toilets are set.The ongoing site maintenance costs associatedwith sign placement are acknowledged to bepart of overall program cost. They are to benegotiated between the departments accordingto their respective maintenance capabilities.

The framework provides direction on whatprogram parameters are needed to provideorder, image continuity and effective messagedelivery to meet user needs. The sign strategysuggests unifying elements and offers guide-lines instead of prescriptive standards.Guidelines cover sign design, materials applica-tion, readability and use of site furnishings.

A comprehensive program logic is spelled outfor the first time. Site inspection and mainte-nance principles have been developed inresponse to the need for an integrated data-base and resolution of long-standing mainte-nance concerns. Capital and O&M cost projec-tions have been prepared for all program ele-ments and a 8-10 year life-cycle standard set.This means that 12 -15 signs will need to bereplaced annually.

Department of Tourism Interpretive Sign Mandate

“To communicate an accurate, balanced and representative storypromoting the Yukon’s diversified natural and cultural heritage.”


A signage hierarchy is proposed because thereare limits to program growth and a pointwhere sign saturation begins. This can now bedefined by applying the principles in the strate-gy. The hierarchy has four levels.

At the territorial level this involves bordercrossing signs with a territory wide focus.Regional signage focuses on corridor or areakey features. Logical locations include highwayjunctions, features of regional significance andecoregion boundary points where regional dif-ferences are most apparent.

Community level signage tells community sto-ries. The Department of Tourism has only anadvisory role. The department provides techni-cal assistance on request if there is an interpre-tive or regional orientation component. Thisavoids duplication and gives communities bothdesign freedom and the ability to include acommercial component in any signage endeav-or.

The fourth category of signage is site specific. Itcan be subdivided into major and minor siteswith a distinction made between roadside andbackcountry or river corridor sites. This isimportant because it recognizes the differentexperiential priorities of the river corridor trav-eller as well as the practical maintenance reali-ties. Five Finger Rapids is an example of amajor site while Takhini Crossing would be aminor roadside site. Stewart Island andHootalinqua would be typical minor andmajor river sites.

An inter-departmental signage committee man-agement structure is recommended. It providesa mechanism to co-ordinate signage initiatives,and discuss related issues such as site rational-ization and maintenance. Roles and responsi-bilities are dictated by the type of application,interpretative function, agency capabilities andmandate. A common process is included forthe review of all interpretative sign applications.

Establishment of the interdepartmental signcommittee is identified as a priority. During thesummer of 1995, all sites should be inspectedand the records updated to reflect the newcomputerized format. Sites will be categorizedto reflect the strategy hierarchy with regionaldeficiencies identified and site rationalizationpriorities established. Graphic standards willalso need to be prepared for each sign catego-ry. The strategy recommends program perfor-mance measures be adopted to cover mattersranging from site spacing distance to mainte-nance frequency and program rationalization.Program deficiencies are identified in the reportwith priorities for resolution recommended.The most pressing program deficiency requir-ing attention involves regional orientation sig-nage at major highway junctions.

Interpretive Opportunities Currently RepresentedIn The Yukon Sign Inventory

■ territorial entrance identification

■ orientation, information and warning

■ points of interest, safety and recreation area rest-stops

■ natural history including wildlife viewing and ecology

■ historic use; natural and cultural features

■ First Nation cultural history, land use and occupation

Territorial Entrance Regional Orientation

Point of Interest Historic Use

Natural History First Nation Culture


Effective interpretive signage improves visitorexperience in a variety of ways. First, signs aresilent, 24 hour-a-day, four season, communi-cation tools providing direction, identificationand information of interest to the traveller.Exhibit signage enhances visitor understandingand experience through learning at leisure.These signs stimulate visitor interest in theYukon’s natural, cultural and historic featuresby the stories they tell.

Interpretive signage and wayside exhibits alsohave a third, more subtle purpose, especiallyalong highway corridors. They can delay trav-ellers, thus extending their stay within theregion and increasing the likelihood of themspending money locally. This objective is par-ticularly relevant to the Yukon where themajority of visitors are Alaska-bound.

The quality, appearance and frequency ofinterpretive signage and wayside exhibitsinfluences the visitor’s impressions and imageof the Yukon. Done well, they complementother marketing initiatives and can motivate achange in behavior. For example, the visitorenroute to Dawson may divert for a side tripdown the “Silver Trail” to Elsa and Mayobecause of the exhibit at Stewart Crossing. Theextra day spent in the area puts from $65.00 to$100.00 directly into the community economy.

The reaction of the highway traveller andbackcountry user to signage along a trail orriver may differ. The backcountry, wildernesstraveller may perceive such signage as aninappropriate intrusion, out of context withthe environment. Signage and site develop-ment policy must respect and respond to arange of visitor needs.

A working definition of both a sign and awayside exhibit is needed to put the Yukonsign program in perspective. The followingdefinitions have been used.1

■ A Sign is an inscribed board, plate, orspace that provides information, warningor guidance

■ A Wayside Exhibit interprets features orevents on a site to develop a theme or astory and differs from a sign by providingexplanations

The Yukon has one of the most comprehen-sive interpretive sign programs in the country.

A typical Sign is an inscribed board, plate, or space that provides information,warning or guidance

Introduction 1.0

A typical Wayside Exhibit interprets features or events on a site to develop atheme or a story and differs from a sign by providing explanations

1 Trapp, S., Gross, M & Zimmerman, R. Signs, Trails and Wayside Exhibits:Connecting People and Places Interpretive Handbook Series, University ofWisconsin 1994


There are 203 signs at approximately 125 sitescontained in the database illustrating a broadrange of themes about Yukon geography, nat-ural and cultural history. With the exception ofthe Yukon River and Herschel Island, the signsare located along the main highway corridors.

Purpose of the StrategyThis strategy defines the roles and responsibili-ties of the Department of Tourism for interpre-tive signage. It provides a comprehensive pro-gram framework and logic for site selection,design, construction and maintenance ofYukon interpretive signage. It recognizes fromthe outset that the Department of Tourismdoes not have an exclusive mandate for sig-nage program delivery and must work co-operatively with the departments ofRenewable Resources (RR) and Community &Transportation Services (C&TS) to deliver acost-effective and informative program thatresponds to visitor needs. The strategy pro-vides a framework for interdepartmental com-munication and cooperation.

Over the past 15 years, Tourism Yukon hasinstalled interpretive signage along Yukonhighways and the Yukon River. Both thedepartments of Community & TransportationServices and Renewable Resources have beenpartners in this process and continue to devel-op programs of their own. For example, C&TShas erected new anti-litter signage and adopt-ed a policy concerning the use of symbologystandards. The department has also developeda series of truck pull-offs in response to newfederal regulations limiting trucker drivingtimes. In 1994 C&TS also completed a policyreview of commercial signage along Yukonhighways. One solution, generally favored bythe department and supported by many atcommunity meetings, would see the develop-ment of a standard community informationkiosk.

Renewable Resources initiated a very success-ful, Yukon-wide Wildlife Viewing Program in1991 which relies heavily on the developmentof wayside exhibits at key locations. All thesetypes of initiatives have implications for theplacement of interpretive signs and site selec-tion.

A number of key events makes the prepara-tion of a departmental interpretive signagestrategy a timely initiative. These include:

■ completion of regional tourism strategiesemphasizing the role and value of inter-pretive signage and point-of-interest sitedevelopment

Example of signage from Renewable Resources’ successful Wildlife Viewing program

New anti-litter signage fromCommunity and Transportation Services

1.1

The current system has a variety of problems including sign placement andfrequency, materials choice, style and form


■ signing of an interdepartmentalMemorandum of Understanding betweenthe three departments covering develop-ment and maintenance of pull-offs, points-of-interest and recreation sites in 1990

■ completion of strategic plans for wildlifeviewing, and interpretation of theDempster Highway Corridor

■ completion of a highway stopping pointinventory (McSkimming 1990), and signinventory of the 125 existing sites (Tourism1994)

■ replacement of the Alaska Highway “mile-posts” in 1992 and development of a newstyle of Point of Interest site (i.e. BoveIsland, Kluane River)

A decade of anniversary commemorationsalso started in 1992 making interpretive sig-nage a government priority. The 1994 siteinventory review revealed a number of issueswhich warrant program re-evaluation. Somesignage is acknowledged to be redundant, out-of-date and in poor condition. Site selectionand development standards vary considerablyreflecting uncertainty concerning site purposeor agency mandate. Some interpretive themes(i.e. Gold Rush) are well represented; others arenot (i.e. First Nation’s cultural history).

Sign development and maintenance has beena shared responsibility with RenewableResources and C&TS because these depart-ments have the ability to utilize crews for con-struction and maintenance. Capital and O&Mcosts are increasingly straining the existingpartnership budgets. Certain issues such assupporting infrastructure (i.e. pull-off mainte-nance, outhouse eduction, and garbage dis-posal) are an ongoing headache. Site furniturestandards need to be applied in a consistentmanner. Also, no spacing distances exist sothere is no sense of order and hierarchy.

All completed regional plans encourage con-struction of additional roadside pull-offs,viewpoints, and signs as part of their “regionalimage”. This creates an expectation that theprogram can be easily expanded withoutacknowledging the ensuing capital and main-tenance costs which arise.

ApproachThe approach used to develop the strategy isdescribed to the left. The process involved areview of the sign inventory photographicrecords, interviews with affected agencies anda sample of affected sign users to determinethe main issues. The existing program wasanalyzed to identify strengths and weaknesses,determine previous program logic and currentoperating procedures.

The strategy answers many questions about:■ the strengths and weaknesses of the existing interpretive signage

program

■ the main issues involved in program delivery

■ opportunities to improve effective program delivery

■ the present capital and O&M costs and what refurbishment of theexisting infrastructure will involve

■ how program co-ordination, signage, site development quality,and interpretive effectiveness can be improved while controllingcosts

■ what the role and responsibilities of the Department of Tourismshould be

■ what heritage themes should be represented in a Yukon-wideinterpretive strategy and whether they should be presented on aregional or corridor basis

■ whether there should be a uniform standard for all interpretivefacilities or the regionally based approach continued

1.2

REVIEW EXISTING DATA

IDENTIFY GAPS

ANALYZE PROGRAM ELEMENTS

IDENTIFY ISSUES AND TRENDS

MISSION STATEMENT PROGRAM LOGIC

PHASE 2. STRATEGY FRAMEWORK

PHASE 3. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND

SITUATION GUIDELINES

PROPOSED STRATEGY FRAMEWORK


DATA FILE AND MAPPING

RECOMMENDATIONS

FINAL REPORT

DESIGN GUIDELINES

O & M PRINCIPLES

Study Process

PHASE 1. SITUATION ANALYSIS


The degree of reliance on inter-agency partici-pation and the need for co-operation wasvery quickly apparent. For this reason, theapproach was adjusted to bring the otheraffected departments into the planning andproject review process.

Opportunities and constraints to programoperation were identified and current interpre-tive trends researched. Program costs werealso tabulated. A new data base records sys-tem was designed to meet all potential userneeds and the conversion process initiated.This resulted in a situation analysis reportwhich was reviewed by interdepartmental rep-resentatives.

In stage two, a preliminary strategy and pro-gram framework was developed based onmarket needs. The proposed strategy is basedon a market-driven approach. A mission state-ment clarifying roles, responsibilities and pro-gram objectives followed, based on a partner-ship focus. An organizational sign hierarchy,principal interpretive themes and general signand site development policy were then created.The results were summarized in a Concept &Principles Report and reviewed by the SteeringCommittee.

The final project phase involved preparing animplementation strategy and working processfor interdepartmental co-operation. Directionon general design guidelines, program priori-ties and associated cost projections have beenformalized to facilitate program operation andmaintenance. Sketches, graphs and charts illus-trate the strategy, taking into account a rangeof possible users.

This final report summarizes the new programlogic and provides a blueprint for future pro-gram operation including existing site rational-ization.

A new computerized data base system was assembled

Typical Interpretive Sign prior to 1985


Program History & CurrentSituationThe program has evolved over the past 15years. It started as a series of simple, verticalwood routed panels identifying Gold Rush erafeatures near Dawson. The next series of signsfocused on the Yukon River, the Alaska andKlondike highways. These initial signs wereintended to provide basic information andencourage visitors to “take a break” as theyheaded north to Alaska or “down river” toDawson.

During the initial years the majority of fundingsupport came through a Federal-TerritorialTourism Development Agreement. By the late1980’s, the department experimented with theuse of different sign construction materials andbegan to develop wayside exhibits at key fea-tures.

The role of the signage program is changingwith a greater emphasis on interpretive storiesrather than a single message. The focus is nowmore on wayside exhibit development andregional orientation in support of completedregional tourism plans. These new regionaltourism strategies recognize the value of signsand wayside exhibits (i.e. Campbell Region).They aid visitor awareness of an area’s attrib-utes and may cause visitors to alter their travelplans.

Yukon interpretive signage has evolved fromsimple, routed message boards to complexporcelain enamel panels complete with pho-tographs and rendered artwork.

The mid-eighties also saw many communitiesadopt mainstreet improvement programs thatincluded community entrance signs and avariety of interpretive signs and waysideexhibits. Many of these community initiativeswere undertaken with the help of Tourism andParks Branch staff. The Watson Lake Sign PostForest and Burwash Landing gold pan are twoexamples that have become tourism “sign”attractions in their own right.

Strategic interpretive planning evolved in thelate 1980’s as planning for the Alaska Highway50th Anniversary got underway. A DempsterHighway Interpretive Strategy was initiatedresulting in the adoption of a consistent motifand interpretive theme developed in conjunc-tion with the Government of the NorthwestTerritories. The focus also shifted to orientationexhibits highlighting several regional themes.For the first time, a comprehensive Yukon-wide strategic planning approach was used todevelop a wildlife viewing program.

Recent regional tourism strategies encourage the use of regional orientation signs to“delay” or “divert” visitors

A greater recognition of First Nations history

Attractions in their own right, above and below

Situation Analysis 2.0

2.1


This program places a heavy emphasis on theuse of interpretive signage at key locationswith the added dimension of short interpretivetrails at many sites. This program has beendeveloped by the Department of RenewableResources and whenever possible, integratedinto sites developed by Tourism or otheragencies.

Another notable change in theme develop-ment was the greater recognition given to FirstNations history and their increasing involve-ment in all aspects of interpretive planningfrom site location to sign content (i.e. Teslin,Kluane river sites).

Program History LogicThe files contain little information concerningthe original program logic. It would appearthat the primary motivator was a desire toimprove basic visitor information and aware-ness of Yukon geography and history.Anecdotal comments suggest that manyYukoners were frustrated by the number ofvisitors who had little idea of whether theywere in the Yukon or Alaska. Others suggestthe initial objective was to provide some uni-formity to the mixture of signage already inplace and some message consistency.

Archival correspondence also implies thatsigns were seen as a way of providing the visi-tor with a “break” during the drive and as ameans of encouraging visitors to linger longerin the Yukon. The wood routed fabricated signformat first began to appear on a regular basisduring the forties across North America and isstill in use in many jurisdictions today. Theyremain simple to fabricate, inexpensive to pro-duce and are very durable. They were intro-duced into the Yukon in the late seventies. Asnew space-age products have become avail-able, their use has declined.

The diversity of signs in the early years sug-gests that the attributes of the individual sitehistory dictated the sign message rather thanany conscious attempt to reflect a particulartheme. A simple routed sign panel hungbetween two posts and a cross beam was typ-ically used. The signs were erected where mostconvenient and often out of context with theirsurroundings.

While the installation structure subsequentlychanged and different materials have beentried, there is no indication of how and whythese changes were made. In some cases suchas the mounting method for vertical signs, costand simplicity seem to be the rationale. The1976 Parks Design Standards Manual and ParksCanada guidelines appear to have been usedas general reference documents.

2.2

An alternative to a traditional wood sign; the low profile and use of natural materials lets the sign blend into its surroundings on the Dempster Highway

Historic building signage no longer used


It would appear that many of the sites selectedfor interpretation had obvious attributes suchas historical buildings, natural viewpoints oranother existing use such as a grader turnaround. It also looks as if the topic selected forinterpretation during the program’s formativeyears reflected the site’s main feature.

No reference can be found which explains thelogic behind the adoption of the use of partic-ular warning sign symbols though they tend toreflect interpretation trends of the period. Thisis not surprising because there was little con-sistency in symbol usage across the country. At one point in the late eighties, the camerasymbol was replaced with words identifyingthe type of site. It would have made moresense to use the word and logo in combinationon the first few warning signs the visitorencountered on entering the Yukon. Thiswould have explained the symbol meaning.But since this was not done, the questionremains—why?

The files contain references to the developmentof internal departmental policy involving thesign program. The first, Guidelines for SpecialFeature Signs Contribution Agreements (October1989) was created to respond to unsolicitedrequests for special features signs which couldnot be funded under existing programs. Theregional tourism strategy would dictate contri-bution funding priority. The proposed signmust complement and not duplicate the exist-ing departmental signage initiatives.

The department agreed to provide a one timecapital cost contribution of up to $1,000.00 fora specific sign project. The agreement was for-mally used twice, first with the Government ofthe Northwest Territories for a sign on theKlondike River encouraging visitors to take theDempster Highway and visit the NorthwestTerritories. The Yukon Fish & GameAssociation also entered into an agreement toproduce and erect direction signs to stockedlakes.

Following a complaint from a highway lodgewhich objected to the development of the“Icefield Ranges” interpretive site, theGovernment developed a policy which saidsuch sites would not be developed within ahalf kilometer of existing tourist related busi-nesses on private land. Also, no site would bedeveloped within 1 kilometer without theirinput and agreement unless there was no suit-able alternative. The other exception involvedmajor highway intersections where regionalorientation kiosks might be located.

The general lack of information concerningprogram logic and the basis for program deci-sions has meant the new strategy must bedeveloped from scratch.

A sign that resulted from a one-time only funding agreement

“With the exception of the Wildlife Viewing Program, noresearch appears to have been done to determine whatvisitors wanted.”

Johnson Crossing a typical highway lodge


Program Issues

Agency Roles & ResponsibilitiesThe key to the sign program has always beenthe degree of interagency support and co-operation. Renewable Resources (ParksBranch) has assisted in site selection, undertak-en routed sign construction and erection andassisted with maintenance.

C & TS has modified and reconstructed pull-outs, fabricated and erected warning signs, andassisted with site maintenance. Much of theearly work was done at cost and with a hand-shake using existing resources. However, ascosts have risen and associated site infrastruc-ture become more elaborate, informal arrange-ments have become less and less prevalent.This reflects the realities of today’s budgetrestraints with the commensurate reduction ofstaff resources as well as the growth of theprogram.

Much of the focus over the past 15 years hasbeen on putting the basic infrastructure ele-ments in place. Little attention has been givento the planning required to manage mainte-nance costs and anticipate eventual replace-ment. In 1995, the focus is now shiftingtowards program rationalization and thestrategic planning overlooked in the earlyyears.

Three Yukon government departments aredirectly involved in some aspect of the inter-pretive signage program. Others, includingFirst Nations, the Canadian Parks Service, vari-ous municipalities, interest groups and theadjoining jurisdictions of Alaska, BritishColumbia and the Northwest Territories arealso involved in some interpretive signageprojects.

The level of involvement and role of eachagency reflects both its operating authorityand in-house capabilities. Both Highways andParks have sign fabrication capabilities andmaintenance crews. Parks focuses on sand-blasted and routed signs while Highways pro-duces standard aluminum silk-screened or diecut vinyl and MDO plywood signs primarilyfor traffic-related purposes. Highways has yearround maintenance crews while Parks oper-ates on a seasonal basis except in the shop.

In recent years both Tourism and RenewableResources (Wildlife Viewing Program) areincreasingly using outside companies for signfabrication. These porcelain enamel signs can-not be produced in-house or by Yukon man-ufacturers at this time.

2.3

2.3.1

Renewable Parks & Recreation • all aspects within parks and campResources Sites grounds including planning, •Parks Wildlife Viewing • construction & maintenance•Wildlife program lead role wildlife viewing program,

• partnership role includes technicalassistance, sign manufacturing, siteconstruction and maintenance

Tourism•Heritage Interpretive • non-commercial signage

program • all aspects heritage sites, lead role management.cultural

•Industry Regional tourism • interpretation and points of interest,Services planning erection tourism promotion signage

• relies on Parks and C&TS fortechnical assistance, site develop-ment and maintenance

C&TS•Transportation Traffic safety, Pull-out • final authority on land use within

Engineering location, design highway ROW including erection •Transportation Land use permit of commercial signage,

Maintenance within ROW • manufactures warning, directional,Maintenance & regulatory signage, builds pull

outs and provides maintenance assistance; develops truck safety rest-stops

• community/roadside serviceswarning signs

Sign Roles &Agency Mandate Responsibilities

Summary of Roles and Primary Responsibilities

Queen's Printer

Interpretive Signage

Canadian Park Service Municipalities

Interest GroupsAlaska, B.C., N.W.T.

Renew

able

Resourc

es Tourism

Community & Transportation

Services

First Nations


Since the Department of Tourism does nothave a construction or maintenance capability,it must rely on either Parks or Highways crewsto perform ongoing site maintenance such assurface grading and garbage pick-up. Bothagencies are usually involved in site construc-tion and sign erection to some degree.

In 1990 the three main agencies affected,(Tourism, Renewable Resources and C&TS)negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) concerning the planning, developmentand maintenance of public facilities alongYukon highways. The impetus for this agree-ment came from a recognition that the contin-uing demand for new wayside exhibit siteswas creating problems for all the agenciesinvolved and some program rationalizationwas needed to keep maintenance costs undercontrol.

The MOU recognized that “the departmentscurrently cooperate on an ad hoc, but com-plementary fashion”2. Tourism historically hasfocused on the development of Points ofInterest sites for visitors, while Highwaysfocused on the development of truck safetyand community entry rest-stops. RenewableResources focused on campground develop-ment and outdoor recreation sites.

Highway reconstruction has created a numberof opportunities to develop pull-outs at nomi-nal cost when the work can be co-ordinatedwith other agencies. Peepre (1988) noted anumber of program deficiencies in hisRecreation Activities System Planning Study thatcould be resolved through better program co-ordination. Concerns included duplication ofpull-outs, poor or unattractive settings, accessand egress safety issues, poor maintenanceand inappropriate facilities. The Peepre studydoes not indicate which specific sites need tobe re-examined nor does it cover all corridors.

The need to formalize many of the existinginformal arrangements has largely been cost-driven as previously noted. The absence of aclear policy framework complicates the issuewhen program rationalization is required.New programs such as the wildlife viewinginitiative fill interpretive gaps, yet begin tocloud boundaries between agency responsibil-ities. For example, the advance warning signfor the Takhini Burn site includes both thewildlife viewing and camera symbols as thesite involves both agency’s elements. Whileperhaps a logical enough compromise to eachagency’s goals, one is left to question whetherthis solution is effective or confusing to thepublic it is intended to serve.

2 Interdepartmental MOU Guidelines for the Development & Maintenance ofPull-Offs/Points of interest/Recreation Sites, July 12, 1990

Typical outdoor recreation site

A demand for more garbage cans and washroom facilities along the highwayshas created a range of ongoing maintenance requirements


One of the most notable public concernsraised in agency interviews is the proliferationand use of formal and informal pull-outs forunintended purposes such as overnight camp-ing. During the past year all borrow pits andpull-outs have been signed with a list of “no’s”.Site problems have included garbage and RVholding tank discharge. This has led to ademand for more garbage cans and wash-room facilities along Yukon highways. Theongoing maintenance requirements mayexceed the value of the signage itself. Notevery site which has a sign needs to beaccompanied by such facilities.

From our research it is clear that interpretivesignage is accepted as an area where interde-partmental co-operation is essential. Goodcommunication is essential regardless of whichagency has any individual project lead. Signsmust be looked in context with the site wherethey are erected and the subsequent ongoingassociated maintenance costs.

Thus from the Department of Tourism’s per-spective the following issues require resolutionbecause the department is dependent on oth-ers for program implementation.

Theme RepresentationNine broad thematic categories have beenidentified in the existing sign inventory. Thisanalysis suggests that overall, the current pro-gram covers a range of themes that would beof interest to visitors and residents alike.However, it is important to put this represen-tation in context. There does not appear to beany glaring omissions or significant duplica-tion of interpretive messages except for theAlaska Highway signage program.

Some sign copy is dated and reflects a particu-lar historical perspective. First Nations historyand land occupancy is certainly better repre-sented in the last five years than in earlieryears. There also appears to be a better bal-ance between natural and cultural historytheme representation with the most recentmajor site development projects (i.e. TakhiniBurn, Kluane River) than with earlier projects.

In a spatial context, sign representationappears reasonable at first glance, averagingbetween 20 and 40 kilometers on the AlaskaHighway and 25 kilometers on the KlondikeHighway. However on the Alaska Highwaythere are some obvious anomalies with signspacing as close as 1 kilometer to as much as130 kilometers apart. Sign spacing on theYukon River averages 67.5 kilometers. This isabout right for the wilderness canoeist as itoffers diversion without overly compromisingthe sense of “wilderness” so important to theoverall trip experience.

2.3.2

Thematic Representation MatrixThematic Category

Historic-Settlement

Historic-Exploration & Mining; General

Historic-Exploration & Mining; Klondike Gold Rush

Historic-Transportation &� Communication; Alaska Hwy.Historic-General

First Nations History

Natural History

Number of Signs

41

14

12

25

20

12

12

Degree of Representation

generally good, but not all communities represented directly especially Watson Lake, Whitehorse and Haines Junction

fair but dated and not in context with impacts or importance to Yukon economyadequate in the Dawson area and most often mentioned influence on other related signage

adequate from post gold rush period but incomplete from First nation perspectiveAlaska Highway Anniversary signage has filled in gaps; well representedhas potential for further developmentunder-represented, notable improvement from 1988 on

Regional Orientation

Site identification (non-interpretation)

Note: Signs may be listed in more than one category given nature of sign content

Historic-Transportation &� Communication;

21

14

40

opportunity for expansion, with more emphasis on ecology; significant improvement through Wildlife Viewing Program

weak but improving; more work needed at major hwy. intersection points24 of 31 signs related to Alaska Hwy. milepost program, 9 are border crossing signs and 6 identify major sites

The Main Sign Development QuestionsIdentified Include:

■ how many and what types of wayside exhibits and interpretivesigns are needed before saturation is reached?

■ where can departmental efforts best be focused and what is theimage the department wants to project?

■ should the program be “market driven” by visitor needs or“education” driven by interpretive objectives?

■ what, if any, is the present standard interpretive sign/exhibitdesign format, hierarchy, construction method and expectedlifespan and what should it be?

■ where can sites be combined to reduce costs and avoid duplica-tion such as regional orientation sites at highway junctions?

■ what are the ongoing maintenance costs likely to be and howshould these costs be planned for and budgeted where otheragencies are doing the work?

■ can one interagency sign committee be the forum for interpretivesignage planning and, if so, is the present structure workable?


The Campbell, Canol, and Nahanni RangeRoad corridors are poorly represented and thisseems to reflect their current low traffic loads.Certainly in the late eighties the priority wasupgrading the Alaska and Klondike highwaycorridors before the 1992 anniversary com-memorating highway construction.

The location of existing pull-outs and signsalong the study corridors are illustrated in theappendices.

Audience ApplicabilityLittle direct work has been conducted on visi-tor perspectives concerning the sign program.The 1987 Visitor Exit Survey (VES) is usuallyreferenced and there may be relevant informa-tion in the 1994 survey when the results arefully analyzed.

In 1994 Tourism staff prepared a sign surveythat was administered on random visits to 26different sites during July. 113 parties wereinterviewed to determine the level of aware-ness, how the sites are used and why peoplestop. The questions also addressed issues suchas spacing distance, the utility of warning signsand whether the sites and signs met visitorneeds. Given the small sample size and the sur-vey method, the study authors caution theuser not to over-generalize the results.

With that caution in mind, and recognizingthat such a survey had not been conductedbefore, the results are interesting. First, visitorsare aware of the sites and their general pur-pose. They are being used for a variety of rea-sons, including taking a rest. Good views islisted as being the dominant reason for stop-ping.

High view sites such as Bove Island and FiveFinger Rapids score much higher than similar-ly developed sites at Rancheria Falls andKluane Lake. The data also suggests that sitessuch as the Tintina Trench, which is relativelypoorly developed, should be upgradedbecause it is already a major stopping point. Itis also a location with known potential forrecreational site development.

The majority of participants indicated therewas an adequate number of sites and a goodbalance in the amount and quality of informa-tion provided on the signs. There did not seemto be a preference either way for wood routedor laminated panels. It is not clear whetherviewers recognize that the vertical panels aremeant to be read from vehicles during a briefstop as opposed to the panel stands where theviewer is encouraged to leave the vehicle. Mostsites are visited for under 20 minutes. The sur-vey does not differentiate between time spentat major sites such as Teslin Lake or minor sitessuch as Takhini Crossing.

2.3.3

The Main Agency Planning Issues Include:■ the need to establish spacing criteria and site development priorities

■ the need to co-ordinate new sign erection or replacement with roadredevelopment schedules where possible

■ the need for site and sign rationalization with a hierarchy respon-sive to visitor profiles and needs

■ the need to clarify inter-program relationships where a corridorinterpretive strategy is in place

■ the role (if any) that the Tourism sign program should play in theprovision of special, tourism related, directional/orientation signsfor local communities and interest groups

■ the extent of departmental assistance that should be provided tolocal groups or communities wanting to erect historical and inter-pretive signs

Visitors generally preferred international symbols be used on warning signs

Good site selection and planning meets visitor needs and interpretation objectives


The majority of respondents had little difficultyfinding the sites and generally preferred the useof international symbols on warning signs.Views on their placement differed with a pref-erence for a 2 km. and 100 metre placementdistance. Suggested improvements includedmaking these signs larger, naming them andindicating which side of the road they are on.

A number of people use the Milepost as thestandard reference text which suggests thathow and where the sites are advertised is animportant consideration. The Wildlife Viewingprogram for example has copied this tech-nique and produced a guide book for its sitesbecause this approach has proven popular inother jurisdictions. There does not appear tobe any indication of whether the references inthe current Yukon roadmap have improvedvisitor awareness.

This is a good example of the general movetowards more strategic thinking because ittakes advantage of the opportunity to integrateinterpretation goals into publications com-monly used by visitors.

In the 1994 survey, respondents indicated thatwashrooms, garbage bins and possibly picnictables are appreciated at major sites but notthat necessary at minor points. Since the pro-vision of these facilities has major cost impli-cations, their placement needs to be carefullyconsidered. Sizing and maintenance activityare also influenced by the level of use.

The current priority Yukon tourism marketsare illustrated on the next chart. We know thattour bus companies stop at a variety of sitesalong the way but the number of stops is dic-tated by fixed daily travel distances. Thus,buses leaving Watson Lake or Skagway haveWhitehorse as the next overnight stop fol-lowed by Dawson and Beaver Creek. This lim-its the number of en route stops possible.Independent travellers have more flexibilityand travel distance varies considerablydepending on whether the traveller has a defi-nite schedule or not.

As a general rule of thumb, there is a correla-tion between en route time, distance travelledand the probability of stopping. Thus thechance of stopping is greater after an hour oftravel than it is after 15 minutes, all other fac-tors being equal.

The form, copy size, print to background con-trast and font size all influence sign readability.Other factors such as the plaque placementangle influence readability and durability. Forexample a vertical sign is generally unaffectedby sun angles where an angled sign is, espe-cially if the copy/background contrast is notsharp.

Visitors find high view sites like Bove Island (above) more interesting than similardeveloped sites such as Kluane Lake (below)

Style 15% • enjoy risk, danger and change in their livesConscious • Trend-setters, seek variety in destinations; Adventurers will “rough it”(SCA’s) • Travel frequently; spend most of any segment

• Tend to be young, male and single• Most are in western Canada (22%) and

Ontario (19%)• High interest in Yukon as a destination

Organized 29% • Emulators and belongers; follow the leadNeighbor- of othershood • Enjoy outdoor living, getting off the beatenOutdoors pathFolk • Interested in events, attractions, history(ONO’s) • Interested in gambling; some interest in

entertainment• Less frequent travellers who spend less• Like organized holidays, tours , use travel

agents a lot• Older, middle class, less education• Reside almost entirely in U.S.; none in

Canada• Profile fits many current Recreation vehicle

travellers

Segment Market Characteristics

Psychographic Traveller Profile

Source: McKim Baker Lovick BBDO Psychographic segmentation Study, TourismYukon 1992


This is the case with a number of panels suchas Five Finger Rapids and some of the AlaskaHighway commemoration panels.

Children and senior citizens may have troublereading the angled panels and for differentreasons. Children may not be tall enoughwhile seniors may not have the quality of eyesight to read the text properly. These problemscan be overcome through proper attention tosign design, placement, and consideration ofuser needs.

Infrastructure Condition & ImageConsistencyThe records reveal that the majority of signsreceive a yearly inspection except those alongthe Yukon River. A summary of the number ofsigns erected each year since 1982 is providedto the left.

There are seven types of sign panel types cur-rently in use. The three most common signtypes are wood routed and engraved, woodsandblasted and porcelain enamel. Theemphasis on wood routed signs reflects in-house capabilities. Although the problemswith surface finishing on the wood signs hasbeen resolved (cracked and peeling varnish),replacement signs are usually identical to theoriginal sign with little or no updating of mes-sages and sign content.

The signs exhibit large blocks of type, set inupper case (caps) often without adequatespace around the text. In some cases messagelength is excessive and exceeds standard read-ability criteria (i.e. see Flesch Type ReadabilityScale in Appendix 2).

The following series of photographs illustratesa range of typical issues encountered in thereview of the existing sign inventory.

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

02

30

19

19

14

02

05

04

11

02

49

09

12

11

Signs ErectedSince 1982

The Main Audience Needs Include:■ the need to determine what site furnishings are necessary

■ the need to improve warning signage

■ the need to “test market” sign solutions to make sure they meetvisitor needs

■ the need to determine whether the identity of the corridor ismarketable

■ the need to develop a current database that includes informa-tion about the site as well as the sign

■ the need for consistent location monitoring to minimize vandal-ism and keep maintenance cost records

■ Wood—sandblasted and routed or engraved

■ Fiberglass Embedded Cibachrome

■ Porcelain enamel—baked glass finish

■ Cast aluminum and bronze

■ Poly-tech—baked plastic paint finish

■ MDO plywood—hand-painted or silk-screened

■ Aluminum—silk-screened or die cut vinyl

Seven Types of Sign Panels Currently In Use:

2.3.4


Examples of Typical Existing SignIssues

Classic example of four different signs competingfor attention with different:

■ sizes■ materials■ forms■ colors

■ Large sign screens site feature it is interpret-ing

■ Location of sign at top of bank preventseasy reading of text

■ Extent of text crowds sign face

■ Can’t read black text on wood sign■ Can read white text on wood sign■ Both signs display long messages

1

2

3


■ Silk Screened plywood with plexiglass cover■ Message at base of sign is too long and dif-

ficult to read

■ Outhouse perched in front of main view attop of the bank

■ Is there a less obvious location?

■ Unusual elevated deck that appears totallyout of context with its surroundings

5

6

7


■ Signage location in 3 separate areas■ Location and access? ■ No Base treatment, grade change

■ Sign applied directly to historic building itis describing

■ Difficult to read from road■ Single, upper case text in one paragraph

■ Large vertical sign does not fit context whereview is most important feature

8

9

10


The observations can be summarized as fol-lows:

■ Because of their uniformity, the woodrouted signs often provide little continuitywith the surrounding site and story beingtold. However they are simple to fabricateand relatively inexpensive given in-housecapabilities

■ In many cases sign placement disrupts theview or limits common photographicopportunity angles

■ In most instances the standard pull-out isreally a road widening with no clearlydefined entry or exit point because it sim-plifies road maintenance

■ At the new major interpretive sites the signpanels are generally better written with amore balanced view but the texts aregradually getting longer

■ Relevance of some Alaska HighwayAnniversary signage is difficult to appreci-ate without the accompanying brochure;what happens when the brochure is out ofprint?

■ Many of the oldest stained, routed signshave lasted longer than the newer models

■ The elaborate, elevated display decks usedin many of the major sites appear out ofcontext with their surroundings and over-built with little regard to long term mainte-nance implications

■ With the exception of the vertical signs, themajor wayside exhibits are not maintainedin the winter and are unusable

■ Wayside exhibits are currently identifiedwith several different symbols (i.e. binocu-lars, camera) depending on the agencyinvolved yet neither symbol has been test-ed to see which is more effective orwhether differentiation is needed

■ There is little or no co-ordination of siteinfrastructure including benches andgarbage bin placement and no clear direc-tion on their relationship to the sign or site

■ Although a corridor symbol has beenadopted for highway identification forsome time it has not been used in a con-sistent manner or been adopted in othersignage as a unifying element. Also the col-ors used, such as the yellow for theKlondike highway, are unreadable

■ It is not clear what happens when certainpainted sign boards need replacing (i.e.Alaska Highway “NWHS” CommemorativeSigns)

■ Landscaping efforts at most major interpre-tive sites have failed due to lack of careand attention to the timing of installation

Mixed messages- at WatsonLake (left) and JohnsonCrossing (below) signageappears to discourage travel

Carmacks signage invites travellers to take Campbell Highway


Construction/Maintenance EconomicsSign fabrication cost records were ascertainedfrom a review of the files and inter-agencycorrespondence plus personal interviews. Thecharts to the right represent typical sign projectcosts including design, fabrication and installa-tion.

It is difficult to estimate accurately toilet hold-ing tank installation costs. At Five FingerRapids two tanks cost $1,120.00 to install. Hy-ab rentals run $150.00 day plus milage and areused to deliver and install site furnishings.Eduction service costs for toilets haveincreased substantially from $54.50 in 1991 to$74.50 in 1994 plus mileage..

The records indicate the costs to construct 5major interpretive sites in recent years (notincluding sign component) were:

■ Kluane Lake . . . . . . . . . . . $22,742 (private contractor in 1989)

■ Bove Island . . . . . . . . . . . . $17,650 (private contractor in 1990)

■ Fraser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $24,135 (private contractor in 1989)

■ Teslin Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . $16,585 (private contractor in 1990)

■ Haines Rd. (km. 162) . . . . $12,500 (Renewable Resources existing site)

In 1994 Renewable Resources fabricated 7point of interest signs for Tourism at a cost of$7,350.00 which included posts and hardwarebut not erection. The 87 metal mile posts pro-duced for the 50th Anniversary were fabricat-ed by Duncan’s Ltd. at a cost of $106.00 eachand painted by C&TS ($67.50 each).The 15porcelain enamel interpretive panels (approxi-mate size 28”x40”) cost $27,000 to fabricate.$22,000 was spent on consultants to researchand write the text.

The cost of a typical 28”x40” porcelain enamelpanel cost in 1993 broke down as follows:

■ research and writing . $1,000–1,500 (ifdone by a consultant)

■ design . . . . . . . . . . . . . $500–750 (if doneby a consultant)

■ fabrication . . . . . . . . . $2,000–2,500■ metal frame stand . . . $125 (produced by

Renewable Resources)

Installation costs vary significantly dependingon location, number of signs involved andwhether maintenance crews are in the area.

Costs for the 9 new border crossing signs isestimated to be $8,000 each, broken down intoengineering and design ($5,00), fabrication($7,000) and installation ($450).

2.3.5

Rest Area Aluminum 120x45 cm $ 30-50 7-10 years$ 55.05

Sign Type Size Installation Cost

Estimated Life

Cost

No Camping, Litter barrel 60x60 cm $ 30-50 7-10 years$ 40.40

Mounting Post & Hardware each in sign cost 10-15 years$ 40

2 km. Warning Tab 60x30 cm $ 30-50 7-10 years$ 23.63

Breakaway Sign Posts each in sign cost 10-15 years$ 100

Wood Routed Vertical Sign 51"x84" varies 10 years$ 600-750


Estimated Life

Cost

Sand Blasted Site Identification 16"x132" varies 10 years$ 1,200

Garbage Cans & Base each $ 30-50 25 years$ 1,050

Toilets (regular) Toilets (handicapped)

each each

varies 10 years$ 1,800 $ 2,350

Picnic Tables each 10 years$ 180

Septic Holding Tanks (1,000 g) each varies 25 years$ 1,050

Community & Transportation Services

Renewable Resources

Typical Fabrication & Installation Cost

$22,742$125 $3,875 $1,200(site development cost)


Five different local sign shops were consultedto review private sector capabilities and asso-ciated production costs. All porcelain enamelsigns are manufactured outside the Yukon.Local capabilities vary significantly with vary-ing degrees of work sub-contracted out. Mostlocal shops have silk-screen and hand paintedsign capabilities using wood or metal surfaces.Wood routed and sandblasted signs can beproduced locally by one firm but at a sub-stantially greater cost than RenewableResources. Quotes for typical program signsincluded:

■ 51”x84” wood routed sign . . . $750–1,800■ 16”x132” sand blasted sign . . . $1,750–2,000■ 24”x24” aluminum sign . . . . . . $75–200

(minimum order size)

It is difficult to accurately compare true costsbetween the service provided by the two gov-ernment sign shops without knowing all actu-al overhead costs. Sign costs may also comedown with volume orders.

As it currently stands each operation seems tohave its own production speciality. TheHighways Sign Shop specializes in road ori-ented signs; the Parks Shop in wood routedand sandblasted signs. The private sector ismore involved in silk-screening and handpainted signs and general graphic design.

From a maintenance standpoint there is awide variation in opinion as to sign durability.Some of the oldest vertical stained signs havelasted the longest and weathered well beyondtheir anticipated lifespan. None of the sand-blasted site identification signs have sufferedany damage.

Vandalism is a concern and tends to occur inspurts. Most damage is done by bullet holes. Anumber of porcelain enamel signs have beenvandalized in this manner, highlighting onedisadvantage of this type of sign over the ver-tical wood routed signage panels.

In other cases, identification signs are stolenregularly by tourists. The Yukon River signand some of the more colorfully named sitesalong the highway suffer in this regard.

Once erected, most interpretive signs receivelittle if any direct maintenance. This is mostapparent along the Yukon River. General sitemaintenance includes parking area surfacegrading, garbage removal and toiletcleaning/eduction. This latter cost is increasingsteadily.

In 1990 McSkimming & Associates undertookan inventory of highway reststops includingtheir approximate maintenance costs. Typicalyear-round costs for grading, site maintenanceand litter pick-up appear to average $2,500 ayear.

Who’s Doing What?

Typical vandalism damage—$1,500 replacement

Sign Type Ren. Res C&TS Private Sector

Wood-sandblasted and routedor engraved ✔

Fiberglass Embedded Cibachrome ✔

Porcelain enamel-baked glass finish ✔

Cast aluminumand bronze ✔

Poly-tech-baked plastic paint finish ✔

MDO plywood-hand-paintedor silk-screened ✔ ✔

Aluminum-silk-screenedor die cut vinyl ✔


“The experience of the 50th Anniversary of the Alaska Highwaypoints to the need for more lead time and forethought inresponding to pressures associated with the decade of anniver-saries now upon us.”

McSkimming also found that single vehiclesand truckers accounted for 90% of all rest stopusers during the season with the remaindersplit evenly between local residents and bustours. In 1994 in exchange for maintenance offive campgrounds and $27,000, RenewableResources took over the maintenance of 32rest-stops during the summer peak tourist sea-son.

Program Strengths & WeaknessesThere is no doubt that the program is workingand travellers are stopping to read the signsand visit the new interpretive exhibits. Garbagevolumes and eduction costs are a simple butcrude measure of use and both are increasing.The Yukon program is more advanced thanthat of neighboring jurisdictions and is animportant tool in raising visitor awareness ofYukon natural and cultural history.

The degree of partnership exhibited by thethree main departments involved in this pro-gram provides a real opportunity to maximizedevelopment opportunities while controllingcosts. Program rationalization is needed andjoint use sites make sense whenever practical.One obvious opportunity lies in the ability ofC&TS to construct wayside pull-outs at mini-mal cost during road reconstruction.

Co-operative long range planning is in every-one’s best interests. Both the Parks andHighways sign shops need to know whatdemands will be placed on their services sothey can plan yearly production schedules.Tourism needs to know both the capital andongoing maintenance costs to prepare theirannual budgets. Real opportunities exist toexpand partnerships with the development ofregional tourist sign kiosks at the junction ofkey highways similar to the DempsterHighway initiative. Some road and river corri-dors are naturally suited to the developmentof themes (i.e. Canol, Haines—parkway/heritagetrail, Yukon River—heritage river).

Budgets are becoming increasingly tight andthis will necessitate program rationalization.Some roads such as the Campbell and Canolhighways do not have the traffic loads to justi-fy major site development expenditures at thistime, yet these types of facilities can helpattract visitor traffic.

Recent initiatives such as the DempsterInterpretive Strategy and the Wildlife ViewingProgram illustrate the government recognizesthe value of strategic planning.

Throughout the research phase it was clearthat there are significant program informationgaps. As already alluded to, the files are inade-quate from both a program planning, budget-ing and maintenance management perspective.

2.3.6

An Example of New B.C. Government Regional Orientation Wayside Exhibit nearkey highway junction

The major sign fabrication issues for the Department of Tourism

■ when should which type of sign be used?■ the lack of detailed records on all aspects of sign development■ the absence of any maintenance management and replacement

standards■ the number of signs which are near the end of their useful life■ the lack of a means to measure whether new technologies (i.e.

talking signs, visitor radio) are being used and whether newsymbols (i.e. talking sign) are understood by visitors

■ private versus in-house fabrication; should in-house capabilitybe a major consideration in the development of future sign fab-rication guidelines?

■ how can regional orientation sign kiosks be integrated with theproposals currently under review by C&TS in their proposedcommercial sign policy?


Until recently, there was no one single mapthat showed all the existing interpretation sitesand vehicle pull-outs. There is also a need tooverlay potential interpretive opportunities onthis map to analyze distribution and assist insite rationalization.

Another weakness is the absence of perfor-mance measures and any cost/benefit analysis.In 1994 Saskatchewan Highways commis-sioned a study of their tourist oriented direc-tional signage to see whether it was effective.The study found the benefit/cost ratio of suchsignage could be substantial and far exceededthe cost of the signage erected. This wouldsuggest that it may be possible to determinethe cost/benefit of interpretive signs and way-side exhibits to the travelling public. Thiswould help justify both the capital and main-tenance costs associated with this program.

Summary of Program IssuesThe program issues can be summarized intothose related to strategic planning and pro-gram rationalization, site development, signdesign and ongoing maintenance. TheDepartment of Tourism cannot deliver theprogram alone and must rely on the assistanceof Renewable Resources and Community &Transportation Services.

At first blush, the program is about signs andthe sign message. Traditionally, HeritageBranch has focused on the historical aspectsand limited its interest to the cultural historycomponents. It is now faced with the respon-sibility of delivering a program which hastourist visitation objectives as well as a her-itage conservation/public education focus.

It must also integrate this initiative withRenewable Resources wildlife viewing initia-tives and C&TS highway rest-stops programso all three initiatives work in a seamless andcost effective manner.

Interpretation TrendsA number of Canadian jurisdictions are exam-ining the tourist oriented signage that is cur-rently in place. Ontario has a specific heritagesign plaque program with clear policies andguidelines. Manitoba and Saskatchewan havedeveloped consistent “attraction” signage whileAlberta is just starting on a comprehensivereview of its own program. What is mostimpressive about the Saskatchewan andAlberta initiatives is their willingness to markettest signage ideas.

2.5

Alaska Highway 50th Anniversary Theme Sign

Yukon River Thirty Mile section Canadian Heritage River plaque

“The biggest program deficiency is the lack of attention that hasbeen paid to planning for ongoing maintenance and signreplacement. The absence of program logic and clear perfor-mance measures has impaired planning effectiveness. Criteriaare needed for site selection and program rationalization.”

2.4


Other trends in interpretation practice relevantto this study include:

■ the introduction of talking signs and otherinteractive technology (i.e. CD-ROM,Internet)

■ a move away from static to participatoryexhibits with a focus on self-guidance andeducation

■ increasing public support for, and emphasison, holistic interpretation putting the sub-ject matter into a contemporary perspectiveand blending cultural and natural history

■ the introduction of new and more durablematerials and higher quality computer-generated graphics

■ thematic representation of areas from atourist perspective (i.e. “Kluane Country”)

■ staff resource down-sizing, contracting outand cost recovery

■ growth in agency partnerships with jointprograms and compatible objectives

■ more market centered tourism approach tointerpretation; essential component ofregional tourism planning

■ more use of multi-media options to pre-sent a co-ordinated message in public lit-erature and other media

■ integration of public and private sector sig-nage initiatives including corporate spon-sorship

■ the development of new symbols to indi-cate types of attractions and tourism ser-vices

The Overall Program Issues for the Department of Tourism

■ the Department cannot operate an effective program without theassistance of its major partners C&TS and RenewableResources; a logical, integrated approach is needed

■ the absence of basic design and fabrication standards alongwith guidelines for location frequency, on-site placement of sig-nage and standards for supporting infrastructure

■ the need for a common, user friendly, interdepartmental data-base containing information on construction and maintenancecosts for planning and budgeting

■ the need to establish a program logic that is publicly supported

■ the need for program rationalization including lifespan stan-dards and maintenance guidelines

■ the lack of specific studies on visitor response to signage usedand general site effectiveness

■ the absence of program performance measures and interde-partmental communication at all levels to ensure all the partnerssupport the program

Signage is only one of many interpretive strategies. There is a saturation point


Program FrameworkGiven the diversity of existing Yukon interpre-tive signage, and significant investment ofresources, it makes more sense to build on theprogram elements that exist rather than createan entirely new system. The present programcan be reorganized to provide a simple, logicalstructure with a hierarchy of signage that pro-vides flexibility for expansion and rationaliza-tion.

Renewable Resources, C&TS and Tourismhave distinct programs with different objec-tives and interpretive mandates. The primaryneed is for program co-ordination and siterationalization. Traditionally, interpretation hasbeen viewed as a signage program with sitedevelopment and maintenance issues generallyviewed as secondary considerations.Obviously, site characteristics dictate manysign placement locations but this is only oneconsideration. There are limits to growth and apoint of sign saturation which needs to bedefined. Site and sign, from a program per-spective, also need to be considered in a holis-tic interpretive sense to present a consistentimage and co-ordinated theme.

This framework provides direction on whatthe program parameters should be to providesome order to program delivery. It providesideas on how much interpretive signage isneeded before saturation is reached. It alsosuggests guidelines on where it should beplaced, what the infrastructure requirementsmight be, and how maintenance can be man-aged.

Mission StatementThe mission statement reflects the Departmentof Tourism mandate and should be reflecteddirectly in program delivery. Key conceptsinclude accuracy, balance, diversity and repre-sentativeness.

”To communicate an accurate, balanced and repre-sentative story promoting the Yukon’s diversifiednatural and cultural heritage”

ObjectivesThe program objectives are task specificreflecting the tourism department mandateand emphasizing the inter-agency partnershipfocus. The objectives are an essential ingredientof the program framework because theydescribe what will be undertaken, why and forwhat purpose.

Interpretive Strategy Program Framework

3.0

3.1

3.1.1

3.1.2

”To communicate an accurate, balanced and representative story of the Yukon’sdiversified natural and cultural heritage”

Interpretive Strategy Program Objectives ■ to give Yukon residents and visitors alike, an awareness for, and

appreciation of, the mosaic of natural, cultural and historic fea-tures that comprise the Yukon

■ to provide at suitable locations and appropriate intervals, repre-sentative interpretive messages that inform, provoke publicawareness and stimulate interest in the history, culture and nat-ural heritage of the Yukon

■ to inform and educate residents and Yukon visitors alike aboutthe need to protect and preserve the integrity of Yukon heritageresources

■ to provide a cost effective and complete framework for the co-ordination, site selection, development and maintenance ofinterpretive sites and signs throughout the Yukon

■ to provide a clear, concise policy for the planning, design, andpresentation of interpretive signage portraying the natural her-itage, culture and history of Yukon wide importance

■ to present a consistent public image that reflects the full range ofYukon wide interpretive theme opportunities and their distinctiveregional characteristics in a manner that encourages travellersto explore and visit all areas of the Yukon

■ to orient residents and visitors to points of interest along varioustravel corridors throughout the Yukon


The mandate covers both resident and visitorinformation and awareness needs whileacknowledging both educational and tourismpromotional functions. The objectives areaction oriented. They promote cost effectiveprogram delivery, image and message consis-tency and careful locational planning. Theyshould be measurable in both quantifiable andqualitative terms through such mechanisms asvisitor exit surveys.

Interpretive Sign & SiteDevelopment Strategy

Program LogicThe Interpretive Program provides non-per-sonal services usually in the form of in-placesignage. There will always be numerous anddifferent situations for using interpretive sig-nage along interpretive trails, at overlooks, his-toric sites, day use sites, and road-side pull-offs. As there is a wide variety of unique sub-jects to interpret there are many signageoptions. While there is a need for image con-sistency this does not necessarily require com-plete standardization.

Since a comprehensive program frameworkdoes not currently exist the standardizationoption was considered and rejected for the fol-lowing reasons. First, there did not seem to beany clear net benefit. The Yukon already hasan extensive signage program in place. A cer-tain degree of uniformity of approach alreadyexists. Thus it made more sense to build onwhat already existed. Second, standardizationlimits flexibility and the ability to adapt quicklyto changing needs and new technology. Third,a prescriptive approach does not build alliesand this program requires co-operative part-nerships to work effectively. .For these reasonsit is not appropriate to standardize interpretivesigns for the different areas.

The Strategy and Guidelines have beendesigned to provide accurate interpretiveinformation in a clear, concise manner consis-tent with good communication and graphicdesign principles. Interpretive signage also hasa promotional and educational role thatcomes from increased awareness and accuraterepresentation of the natural, cultural and her-itage features of the Yukon.

Basic Program Principles■ A variety of interpretive mediums is required to stimulate trav-

eller interest and respond to changing resident and visitor edu-cation and information needs

■ Interpretation should identify and respond to seasonal opportu-nities (i.e. wildlife migration)

■ Interpretive signage along highway corridors should, whenevereconomically possible, be visible and accessible throughout theyear

■ Signage should present a consistent image and recognizablethematic structure

■ Planning, development and maintenance of Yukon wide inter-pretive signage needs to be co-ordinated to present a unifiedwhole

■ Partnerships with Yukon First Nations, communities and associa-tions helps to ensure the presentation of an accurate, balancedand representative picture of the Yukon’s natural and culturalheritage

■ Signage should factually inform, stimulate awareness of, andprovoke interest in the natural and cultural heritage of theYukon and not advertise individual commercial enterprises orproducts

■ Official geographic place names should be used and translationof the interpretive message considered in a manner that bothrespects and reflects Yukon First Nations culture and Canada’sofficial bilingualism legislation

■ The location and manner of interpretation used should be com-patible with the site, fostering education and awareness withoutcompromising resource conservation objectives

■ The best interpretation is short and concise with learning directlyrelated to the experience

■ Less is more; not all sites or interpretive opportunities are bestinterpreted through signage

■ Supporting site infrastructure should encourage appropriate vis-itor behavior (i.e. pack-in, pack-out along river corridors)

■ Negative regulatory signage should be avoided with rulesexplained in a positive tone

■ Site features such as landmarks, wildlife viewing and historicsite locations may over-ride ideal spacing distances and shouldtake priority

“The interpretive signage strategy applies to Yukon highwaysand the Yukon River corridor.”

3.2

3.2.1


The program framework has the followingsystem design characteristics:

■ allowance for the establishment of unifyingprogram elements to provide a consistentimage throughout the Yukon through theuse of the Yukon wordmark, programlogos (i.e. wildlife viewing binocular logo)sor other recognizable signature feature toprovide an identity for the whole and alsoeach part

■ allowance for interpretive method varia-tion to meet specific site or program needsincluding corridor and regional identifica-tion without compromising Yukon widesystem recognition

■ recognition that spacing distances can onlybe a general guideline because some fea-tures such as landmarks and wildlife view-ing opportunities are very site specific

■ the system encourages the use of localmaterials and labor and different installa-tion characteristics to meet site specificneeds by allowing for the use of a varietyof unifying program elements includingsign form and shape, colour, material fab-rication choice and message appearance

■ the strategy provides policy guidelines, aframework for decision making and aprocess for inter-agency participation

Order, Hierarchy & FlexibilityBased on the types of signs currently in placefour broad signage categories can be definedfrom a hierarchical perspective. They aredescribed as territorial, regional, communityand site specific reflecting their purpose ratherthan organizational mandate.

Signage development responsibility varies withsign purpose. For example, territorial entry sig-nage is clearly the responsibility of theDepartment of Tourism while community sig-nage is more community driven and depen-dent on their commitment to developmentand maintenance.

In this instance, Tourism and Community &Transportation Services take on an advisorysupport role. This role may be expandeddepending on the outcome of Cabinet’s reviewof highway commercial signage. An optionunder consideration is the development of astandard community entrance kiosk to containbusiness advertising, a community map andother tourism related information.

The site specific category recognizes the needfor flexibility and accommodates the range ofsignage already in place. Interpretive signagetreatment reflects site character and takes intoaccount criteria such as safety, spacing stan-dards, site significance and available financialresources.

3.2.2

Six Sign Themes Are Proposed:■ territorial entrance identification

■ orientation information and warning

■ point of interest, safety and recreation area rest-stops


■ historic use, natural and cultural features


FrequencyHierarchy Level of Control

Purpose Government Agency Responsibility

border crossings HighTerritorial identification & territory wide orientation

Tourism

ecoregion highway junction

MediumRegional highway/river corridor significant feature viewing opportunity regional orientation

Tourism-natural & cultural heritage; Renewable Resources wildlife viewing & day use recreation

within communities

MediumCommunity community stories Community and/or First Nations sponsored initiatives supported by C&TS (i.e. entrance kiosk)

highways & corridors according to siting and spacing criteria

LowSite Specific identification and interpretation of sites of particular heritage significance and visitor interest

Tourism-natural & cultural heritage; Renewable Resources-natural history & recreation Joint-river corridors

Sign Order & Hierarchy


Talking sign technology can also be used topresent other messages such as road condi-tion reports, distances to services etc. in con-junction with the interpretive programming.However, before readily embracing this typeof technology or any new method of signagefabrication or message presentation usabilitystandards should be developed and minimumperformance standards applied. Typical ques-tions to ask include:

■ has the product been market tested toensure it meets Yukon market audienceneeds?

■ will the product last for 8 to 10 years andresult in capital and O&M costeconomies?

■ does the product or service provide“added value” to the traveller and meetprogram objectives?

■ has consultation taken place with nearbylodge owners?

■ do proposed facilities duplicate similarfacilities in the area (i.e. campgrounds,lodges)?





Territorial EntranceSite development criteria for the new territorialborder entrance signage is illustrated to the leftwith a site distribution map below.

Signage on the North Canol and NahanniRange Road may be required at some futuredate. Border signage can be developed on astand alone basis or in conjunction with otherinitiatives but the focus should be on Yukon-wide visitor orientation. Support signageshould describe the Yukon interpretive signsystem visitors are going to see and wouldinclude a brief explanation of such things asthe symbol system. This complements theinformation provided at the various visitorreception centers and the information con-tained on the Yukon roadmap.

Time spent at these sites would be minimalthus the extent of site furnishings will varyaccording to the extent of associated sitedevelopment. Thus considerable variation ispossible as is evident in comparing bordercrossing treatment on the Atlin Road to theAlaska Highway Beaver Creek internationalborder crossing point. The signs themselvesare standardized with no message variation.Size, colour, form, font type and shape areused as unifying elements.

Control barriers, (i.e. boulders, bollards)

Orientation map/kiosk

Garbage container

Trail to sign (for photos)

Welcome to Yukon signage

SITE SIGNAGE SUPPORT FACILITIES

Will be included in all site situationsMay be included depending on the interpretive opportunitiesand the level of developmentGenerally not included in this site situation

Expa

nded

Par

king

Picn

ic Ta

ble

Benc

h

Gar

bage

Con

tain

er

Toile

t Fac

ility

Inte

rpre

tive

Supp

ort

Stru

ctur

e

Site

App

roac

hW

arni

ng

Hig

hway

Site

Inte

rpre

tatio

n

Yuko

n O

rient

atio

nM

ap

1000 m

Map

Sign

Features

Layout

3.2.3


Regional OrientationSite development criteria are illustrated to theright. The structure is loosely based on anecoregion theme and the desire for regionaltourism identification. The focus is regionaldifferentiation. The criteria for site distributionand location is predicated on introducing thevisitor to either discrete landform differenceswhich are visually apparent or providing thevisitor with a regional overview at highwaycorridor junction points . This approach firstprovides the opportunity for a new interpre-tive focus that illustrates biodiversity andlandscape ecology. It also provides the flexibil-ity to promote regional corridors such as theSilver Trail using historical, cultural or naturalhistory theme elements. If a regional site islocated at a major specific site, then both ageneral regional message and a site specificstory are told.

Highway junction treatment is particularlyimportant given the limited Yukon wide roadnetwork. This is an opportunity to introducethe use of different information delivery tech-nologies such as “talking signs” which do notnecessarily require site specific development toreach their intended audience because of theirlonger reception range. Talking signs and inter-pretive cassettes may work well in specialcases where direct visitation needs to be dis-couraged. Typical situations might includeavalanche slide zones or native cemeteries.

Toilet facilities

Sheltered interpre-tive display kioskwith “talkingSign” feature

Inter-pretivedisplayfeatures

Garbagecontainer

Yukon orien-tation map

Control barriers, i.e.boulders/bollards

Garbage container

Picnic tables

Expanded, pull-off parking

1 km100m

100m1km

warningsign

Site IDwarningsign


Site

App

roac

hW

arni

ng

Hig

hway

Site

Inte

rpre

tatio

n

Yuko

n O

rient

atio

nM

ap

Identifies attraction, services (i.e. toilets and dumping stations) and other regionalfeatures of possible visitor interest

Map

Will be included in all site situationsMay be included depending on the interpretive opportunities andthe level of developmentGenerally not included in this site situation

Sign

Features

Layout

Expa

nded

Par

king

Picn

ic Ta

ble

Benc

h

Gar

bage

Con

tain

er

Toile

t Fac

ility

Inte

rpre

tive

Supp

ort

Stru

ctur

e

3.2.4


CommunityThe sketches to the left illustrate how commu-nities might develop community entrance sig-nage using various program thematic elementssuch as sign form and shape. At the presenttime, C&TS has developed community reststops at one or more entrances to each com-munity. These rest stops are often used bytransient, en route commercial travellers assafety stops. Others stop only long enough fora toilet break because they are not intendingto stop in the community. The Government ofBritish Columbia has developed a communityentrance program to encourage communitiesto spruce up their communities, reduce thenumber of commercial signs and improve vis-itor orientation to community services andattractions. Community response to a similarsort of program in the Yukon was generallyfavorable following public hearings associatedwith a review of the commercial sign regula-tions. Partnership support from governmentmight include technical design, installationassistance or initial capital cost sharing butmaintenance and long term site managementwould rest with the community.

While it is important to acknowledge thisinformation and interpretation opportunitywithin the larger program, it is envisioned thatsuch initiatives would remain largely commu-nity driven and sponsored. Yukon Tourism’srole would be limited and of an advisorynature to communities and C&TS reflectingtheir participation in regional tourism plan-ning rather than interpretive sign program-ming.

Pull off

Community map and orientation

Garbage container

Exhibit structure (optional)

Control barriers, i.e. boulders/bollards

Point of interest, community info,warning sign


Site

App

roac

hW

arni

ng

Hig

hway

Site

Inte

rpre

tatio

n

Yuko

n O

rient

atio

nM

ap

1000 m

Map


Sign

Features

Layout

Expa

nded

Par

king

Picn

ic Ta

ble

Benc

h

Gar

bage

Con

tain

er

Toile

t Fac

ility

Inte

rpre

tive

Supp

ort

Stru

ctur

e

3.2.5


Site Specific - HighwaySpacing distance along highway corridorsreflects criteria such as time/distance travelratios using a standard 100 kilometers speedlimit, site significance and anticipated levels ofvisitor use. Five Finger Rapids would be anexample of a major site; Takhini Crossing aminor site. Both types of sites allow for a widerange of sign types, formats and styles includ-ing talking signs.

A differentiation between major and minorsites has been made. As a general guidelinemajor sites should be spaced at 50-100 kmintervals with minor sites 40-50 km apart.However, as noted previously, historic sites,wildlife viewing opportunities etc. are locationspecific so some latitude in spacing standardsis essential.


Toilet facilities

Garbagecontainer

Viewpoint(interpretivedisplay structure)

Interpretive display

Pull-off

Point ofinterest display

Garbagecontainer


Picnic tables

Expanded pull-off parking

1 km100m

100m1km

Point ofinterestwarningsign

Point ofinterest sitewitharrowindicatingwhich sideof the roadit’s on

500m500m


MajorMinor


Expa

nded

Par

king

Picn

ic Ta

ble

Benc

h

Gar

bage

Con

tain

er

Toile

t Fac

ility

Inte

rpre

tive

Supp

ort S

truct

ure

Site

App

roac

hW

arni

ng

Hig

hway

Site

Inte

rpre

tatio

n

Yuko

n O

rient

atio

nM

ap

SITE-SPECIFIC:

MAJOR

MINOR


Major Minor

Map

Signs3.2.6


Site Specific - RiverRiver and backcountry site specific signage ishandled differently than roadside sites as illus-trated to the left. A differentiation betweenmajor and minor sites has been made as wellas between highway and river corridor. Thelatter distinction recognizes the different expe-riential priorities of the backcountry travelleras well as the practical maintenance realities oftrying to service river corridor sites. Elaboratesigns and infrastructure are generally out ofplace and intrusive in a backcountry orwilderness corridor environment.. The level ofsupporting infrastructure should be consistentwith wilderness management principles suchas individual “pack-in, pack-out” responsibili-ties. Other mediums such as guidebooks, mapsand brochures keyed to sites may be moreeffective than signs. The principle here is “lessis more”.

Hootalinqua would be an example of a typicalmajor river site while Stewart Island would bea minor site. Exceptions to this rule wouldinclude road accessible campgrounds on theriver such as Minto Landing and major his-toric sites such as Ft. Selkirk.

3.2.7

Safe and suitablebeaching area

Exhibit display atsome sites

Site ID element100 mmin.


Site

App

roac

hW

arni

ng

Hig

hway

Site

Inte

rpre

tatio

n

Yuko

n O

rient

atio

nM

ap


Map

Sign

Features

Layout

Expa

nded

Par

king

Picn

ic Ta

ble

Benc

h

Gar

bage

Con

tain

er

Toile

t Fac

ility

Inte

rpre

tive

Supp

ort

Stru

ctur

e


Strategy ApplicationSpecific to the proposed design system is therecognition that certain guidelines are criticalto its success. The system needs a commoncontext and structure which still allows forflexibility in the use of different signstyles/material and adaptability to accommo-date signage approaches currently in use.

Subject, approach, overall design, colour com-binations, surface preparation, materials, angleof installation, lighting, maintenance, quality ofconstruction, layout and format, lettering andshoreline will all affect the appearance andsuccess of a particular sign. The site layout,access, signs and support facilities will alsoaffect the success of the installation. Eachdesign should be presented to theInterdepartmental Sign Committee for reviewand approval.

The chart to the right graphically illustrateshow the signage hierarchy can be appliedacross the Yukon.

Various theme concepts can be applied to dif-ferent corridors. For example, the signage pro-gram for the Alaska Highway in 1992 com-memorates construction of the road. TheCanol Road also has a similar history that canbe thematically represented as well as potentialto develop associated story lines describing theoriginal First Nation travel route between RossRiver and Ft. Norman. Theme route opportu-nities are illustrated to the right

Shape, form and colour could be used as uni-fying elements consistent with the patternestablished by the border crossing signage. Thelevel of infrastructure development shouldcorrespond to their interpretive significancewith all infrastructure elements present.

Appendix 3 contains 11 drawings illustratingthe existing sign database in graphic form. Thefirst letter of the drawing number is the high-way code which will be cross-referenced tothe computerized sign inventory.

3.3

Sign Hierarchy Application



Strategy Management PartnershipsIt has been recognized from the outset thatsuccessful program implementation is depen-dent on maintaining and enhancing the cur-rent level of inter-agency co-operation.

First Nations InvolvementYukon First Nations history is an essentialcomponent of the interpretive strategy in orderto present an “accurate, balanced and repre-sentative story of the Yukon’s diversified nat-ural and cultural heritage”. Land ClaimsSettlement Legislation provides for direct FirstNations involvement in all matters related tothe protection of their history and culture.Interpretive signage and site development fallwithin this definition.

To this end Yukon First Nations will:

■ be provided the opportunity to participatedirectly in the planning, theme develop-ment and presentation of interpretiveopportunities within their traditional terri-tories as prescribed in the applicable landclaims settlement legislation

■ be consulted on site redevelopment andsignage replacement where First Nationsinterests have been identified

■ be provided the opportunity to review andapprove message translations where a FirstNations component is included

Program Management StructureThe program management’s structure is basedon co-operative partnership principles andmodeled after the Wildlife Viewing Committee.It gives priority to program objectives and setsout a common process for dealing with allinterpretive signage applications. Roles andresponsibilities are dictated by the type ofapplication, interpretive function and agencymandate. Illustrations on this page and thenext describe the application process in flowchart form for new sign proposals andsign/site rationalization.

The common ingredient to both processes isthe role of the interdepartmental sign commit-tee. The core committee would be made up ofthe three departments currently responsible forsome aspect of program delivery. Membershipwould be increased depending on the type ofproposal before the committee and includeboth the initiating agency and affected inter-ests. Thus an application in Kluane Countryfor example, could be brought forward by theregional tourism association and because ofthe location, involve both Parks Canada andthe Champagne-Aishihik First Nation in thereview committee. (It is assumed the applicantconsults the system guidelines and this inter-pretive strategy in preparing their proposal.)

3.5

3.4

3.4.1

FIRST NATIONSTOURISMINTERDEPARTMENTAL

SIGN COMMITTEE

•location •design •theme

APPLICANT/ PROPONENT

REG. TOURISM ASSOC.

COMMUNITY

PRIVATE CONTRACT

COMMUNITY/ INTEREST GROUP

PRIVATE CONTRACT

REN. RES.

C & TS

ADVISORY •Queen's Printer •Consultants

C & TS SIGN SHOP

REN. RES. SHOP

C & TS/ REN. RES.

TOURISM DATA BASE

SYSTEM GUIDELINES

REVISION/APPROVAL •Location •Design

FABRICATION

C & TS INSTALLATION PERMIT

INSTALLATION

REN. RES./C & TS MAINTENANCE

SYSTEM EVALUATION

MODIFICATIONS

DEPUTY MINISTER APPROVAL

NON Y.T.G.Y.T.G

Proposed System (new signs) Implementation


Thus the Sign Committee can focus on loca-tion, design, theme representation and maintenance issues in their review to arrive ata decision.

Once approved, there are several fabricationoptions including the C&TS and Parks shopsor a private contractor. Prior to erection aninstallation permit is required from theTransportation Maintenance Branch. The sameoptions are available for sign installation.Where maintenance is concerned moreoptions are available including the localmunicipality or an interest group.

The process also includes provision for theapproved application to be added to theTourism database and eventually become partof the subsequent system evaluation process.

The evaluation process can be initiated as aresult of the annual inspections or after a suit-able implementation period to assess programeffectiveness. It could for example, be timed tocoincide with a visitor exit survey but shouldas a minimum occur at the mid point of antic-ipated sign system life (5 years). If major pro-gram adjustments are required the proposedrevisions would be referred to the affectedinterdepartmental Directors prior to submis-sion to the deputy Minister for approval.

Sign/site rationalization follows a slightly dif-ferent process. Heritage Branch of YukonTourism is the lead agency responsible for initi-ating the review. Since it is charged with main-taining the database and has the most interpre-tive signage responsibilities it should initiate theprocess. The first step has already been takenin developing a new computerized database.The next step involves updating and complet-ing the empty database records. The recordshould also include an as-built design sketch.Wildlife viewing sites should also be added tothe data base. Each location should be assessedin the field against the broader, interpretive andwildlife viewing strategies and, where applica-ble, the more specific Dempster Highway Plan.in the future, other specific corridor plans willbe based on this overall strategy.

The interdepartmental sign committee thenreviews the capital and O&M costs associatedwith the rationalization proposal, discussesalternatives and evaluates the level of redun-dancy against agency mandates and operatingstrategies. The committee recommendationsare forwarded to the affected departmentDeputy Minister for approval.

REN. RES.TOURISM DATA BASE

INTERPRETIVE STRATEGYWILDLIFE

VIEWING STRATEGY

EXISTING SIGN/SITE SYSTEM

INVENTORY

GUIDELINE APPLICATION BY

TOURISM

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

INTER DIRECTORS SIGN COMMITTEE

DEPUTY MINISTER LEVEL APPROVAL

Queen's Printer Standards

IMPLEMENTATION

INTERDEPARTMENTAL SIGN COMMITTEE • Review Capital /O&M Costs • Review Against Agency Strategies • Redundancy • Suitable Alternatives

C & TS.

PROPOSED SITES FOR

RATIONALIZATION

Proposed Site/Sign Rationalization

“Interpretive signage within the campgrounds, parks, and his-toric sites or along off-road recreational trails remains theresponsibility of the agency with management responsibility.”


System Development PolicySign use and format should meet the followinggeneral policy guidelines:

FormThe Territory has recently approved a newentrance sign design which will establish anew visual identity for visitors. As a basicdesign component the form or forms suggest-ed by this sign should be used as a commonelement in the development of all new signsalong road and river corridors.

ColourLike form, colour too should be used as arepetitive component to strengthen a unifyingtheme for signage such as in a corridor inter-pretive plan. The final colour palette shouldinclude a neutral background colour and sup-porting accent colour.

Yukon SignatureThe Yukon signature should be used on allsign panels as specified by the Queen’s Printer.In groups of more than one attached signs, thesignature should be displayed on the centrepanel.

Site & Sign RationalizationThe sign site rationalization process isdescribed earlier. The priorities for sign/siterationalization should take into account theresults of the site inspections conducted duringthe summer of 1995 and the application of thenew strategy hierarchy. First priority should begiven to those areas where road constructionis anticipated. Second priority should beplaced on resolving sign/site issues related tothe upcoming anniversaries.

The third priority should be to resolve obvi-ous anomalies such as the signage placementon the Carmacks Roadhouse. Fourth priorityshould be given to the elimination of siteduplication to reduce interdepartmental main-tenance costs. Fifth priority should look at siteconsolidation to reduce upgrade costs to meetstrategy guidelines.

New Site & Sign DevelopmentThe key to the recommended strategy is reach-ing agreement between all affected interests toput all government sponsored interpretive sig-nage proposals through the standard reviewprocess. It is important that this occur rightfrom the beginning so the procedure gainsacceptance quickly and builds credibility.

4.1.1

4.1.2

Colour Neutral background with a common accent colour band or border

Common Sign Form An identifiable form (borrowed from the 'Welcome to the Yukon' signs)

Identifiable graphic image that makes one immediately aware of the theme of the site

• Historical

• Natural

Support structure of a common material and colour. Scale and form may vary depending on the sign feature

Common Interpretive Message Format

• Text styles

Yukon Logo On all signs or on the main sign of a grouping of signs.

New Territorial Entrance sign design

Yukon Government Wordmark prominently displayed

Implementation Guidelines 4.0

4.1


Priorities for new sign/site developmentshould focus on regional orientation andhighway junctions, ecoregion identificationand the upcoming anniversaries. Any community signage initiatives shouldcome from the communities themselves fol-lowing completion and adoption of the newcommercial highway signage policy beingdeveloped by C&TS. The community kioskprogram, if approved, would be the logicalstarting point with applications directedthrough the new Sign Committee.

Site Support FacilitiesEach site has its own particular needs. Theplacement, types of materials used, and sitelayout should be consistent with the characterof the site. For example vertical structures areout of place in a tundra setting and need to bescreened accordingly. Depending on the sitecategory a range of supporting facilities isrequired in addition to the basic interpretivesign(s). The following is an overview of possi-ble facilities.

Information KiosksGenerally these are small shelters used in com-bination with interpretive signs or exhibits.They contain panels on basic orientation, andin the case of a regional site, profile the region-al historic, natural and cultural features.

ToiletsToilets should be included for most sites andconstructed to Yukon Parks design standards.Their site placement should be consideredearly in the design process so they are notvisually obtrusive and do not obstruct views.However they should also be easily accessibleto the traveller and take into account the needfor weekly cleaning. The current lime greencolour choice should be reconsidered as it isvisually obtrusive.

Picnic TablesPicnic tables that are located beside parkingareas can encourage visitors to stay longer.Again the characteristics of individual sites willdictate the suitability of their use. Placementshould also consider accessibility, weather andnoise protection from the adjacent road andproximity to garbage cans and parking.Placement should not obstruct other visitorviewing of the interpretive signage.

Garbage ContainersAll road accessible sites should include thestandard Yukon Parks bearproof garbage con-tainer. In some cases placement of the garbagecontainer can be integrated into the design ofother facility elements to reduce visual obtru-siveness without compromising usability.

Information kiosks should be designed to reflect location and blend with site conditions

Toilets should be unobtrusive yet easily accessible

4.1.2.1


Viewing PlatformsThese raised platforms with railings canimprove viewing angles for visitors. They canalso control use of an area by limiting accessto a point. Because they are expensive to con-struct and maintain, they should only be usedwhen other natural site features cannot betaken advantage of.

Brochure DispenserThese outdoor structures are designed to store,protect and disperse interpretive or informa-tion brochures. They require regular mainte-nance to ensure that the brochures are avail-able and are most appropriate in conjunctionwith major sites such as Five Finger Rapidswhere there is a significant interpretive trail.

BenchesLocated close to viewing areas or adjacenttrails, benches provide users with a place torest, sit and enjoy the scenery.

ViewscopesThese interpretive aids help to direct userssight to distant landmarks such as mountainranges or areas where wildlife may be seen ona regular basis. Viewscopes can be as simpleas a tube directed towards a landmark ofinterest.

Signage Design & MaterialsApplicationUntil now, interpretive signs have been con-structed primarily of wood, with a routedmessage. Wood signs can continue to be usedin many instances. They are easy to rout andsandblast, resistant to rot, and produce a rusticambience. Other material including photo-sen-sitive material, porcelain enamel, embeddedimages and metal can be used effectively forinterpretive signage, and may better fit specificthemes than using only wood.

Below are a number of conditions that shouldapply to the signage system.

■ Signs should be complementary to the theme andconcepts being interpreted.This means looking into the use of differentsign types; sandblasted cedar, silk screening onwood and metal, and the use of concrete orrocks for sign supports. The materials usedshould be consistent with theme and setting.

Viewing platforms can improve viewing angles and limit access beyond a certainpoint

Bench installed in conjunction with viewing platform compliments interpretive fea-ture in unobtrusive manner

Viewscopes help direct user’s sight to distant views

4.2


■ Signs should be designed for specific user groupsand the intended season of use.Different types of signs with various standardswill be required for interpretive trails, road-side pull-offs and for specific interpretiveresources.

In winter, signs will be covered with snow andtherefore special designs will be necessary tokeep specific signs functional. A completelyvertical sign might be best for use at interpre-tive sites to be used through winter. For specialwinter interpretation, signs with a protectiveroof might best serve the situation.

■ Signs must be designed to withstand vandalismsuch as gunshots and carving.

No signage is completely resistant to vandal-ism. Wood is better than most metals in areasof hunting, as the bullet usually passesthrough wood where it only bends metal andexposes it to rust and surface deterioration.Metal signs are more resistant to carving,weathering, decay and insect attack and mightbe used where vandalism is expected.

Fixture and placement of the various signs willinfluence vandalism and where possible, theseconsiderations should be taken into accountduring the design and implementation. Inhunting areas, signs should be designed sothat they do not present good targets. A verti-cal sign, specifically ones meant to convey thelaw, makes an ideal target. Care should betaken to place signs in locations where theycannot easily be damaged and remain read-able. Supports might be protected by boulderswith designs angled to make them difficult tohit.

■ Signs should be constructed to prevent damage byanimals.

Materials that have an adverse taste to gnaw-ing animals and birds such as porcupines,squirrels and woodpeckers should not beused. Plywood is a common example.

Often signs are attractive perching areas forbirds, and the sign receives a white washing.As birds usually prefer to perch on a promi-nent and easily accessible perch, these can beprovided away from the sign as directappendages where this activity proves to be aproblem.

Protective roof effectively sheds snow from signage but parking area ploughing leavesberm, making it difficult to get close enough to read

Well designed community sign

Gun-shot damage


Interpretive Sign UseInterpretive specialists have several mediafrom which to choose. Each medium hasinherent qualities that enable it to do a partic-ular job better than any of the others.

A ”yes” answer to any of these questions indi-cates that signs may not be as effective as anaturalist, exhibit, talking sign, audio station,or brochures. On the other hand, if the inter-pretive need can be served by a medium thatis self-paced, photogenic, in place at all times,inexpensive to operate and maintain, a highquality interpretive sign or label should beconsidered. By keeping the objectives, audienceand message in mind, the selection of theappropriate medium will be simplified. A vari-ety of useful reference sources is provided inthe bibliography.

Sign & Site Design Considerations

Sign DesignFirst impressions are important. This is true ofsigns as well as people. Though unrelated tothe message itself, the quality of design andmaintenance of signs may be equated with thequality of the message. Presumably, the signwith the best appearance will have the bestmessage and the greatest expectation ofreward. Hence, the design of the sign is animportant factor in determining whether ornot visitors will read it and accept its message.

Signs should be designed to minimize theirintrusion on the site. The use of local materialsfor the sign and its support can make the signmore aesthetically acceptable and will helppromote the theme of the area. For example,rock can be used in treeless areas, and massiveposts in areas of old-growth timber.

The height of a sign can also be designed to fitthe environment. In open, exposed settings,low profile signs are more appropriate; in aforest setting, elevated signs may be the best.In the Yukon, snow conditions vary signifi-cantly and may have a bearing on site place-ment and height. Many highway pull-outs arestill ploughed so vertical signs will be readable(i.e. Takhini Crossing) while their lower coun-terparts with viewing decks (i.e. Bove Island)are covered by snow or are inaccessiblebecause of a lack of maintenance.

MessageThe label for an object may need only thecommon name to identify it. However, if it isaccompanied by the scientific name, phoneticspelling, and a map illustrating its geographicdistribution or range increases the educationalvalue. It is also more likely to be remembered.

4.2.1

4.2.2

Sign use checklist❏✓ Is a sign the right interpretive solution?

❏✓ Is another pull-out needed or can it be added to an exist-ing site?

❏✓ Is the proposal consistent with the strategy?

❏✓ Has it been reviewed by the sign committee?

❏✓ Are program objectives being met by this medium’sunique qualities?

❏✓ Is personal contact with visitors desirable and economi-cally feasible?

❏✓ Does the message involve an object which can be exhib-ited?

❏✓ Can the message be enhanced with recorded authenticvoices, bird songs, or other sound effects?

❏✓ Will the majority of visitors be near their radios or in sit-uations where they are likely to tune in because they arelooking for particular information?

❏✓ Do you want to provide something for the visitors to takehome with them?


Interpretive messages are more complex.Regardless of length, they must perform anumber of functions. They must gain visitors’attention, hold their interest, provide them withan understanding of the subject, and in somecases evoke a behavioral response. In a shortmessage, these functions must be performed bythe headline, lead paragraph, interior para-graph(s), and closing paragraph. The facts,spelling, grammar, and word choice must beaccurate, concise and appealing to a variety ofreaders. Particular attention should be paid tolanguage translations since words in one lan-guage may not have a direct counterpart.

First Nation involvement is crucial whentranslations are used or the message deals withtheir history and cultural.

Accuracy and ClarityThe text must be accurate. If visitors notice theslightest error, their confidence in the wholemessage will be shaken. Review each phase ofthe sign production process word by word tosee that errors have not been made in typeset-ting or stencil cutting. Putting even minorerrors on public display may detract from theinterpretive message and reflect in a negativemanner on the program’s administration. In aproject representing a substantial investmentof time, energy, and resources, a small scalemodel or mock-up may avoid costly mistakesand needless errors.

Readability Whether or not a visitor reads an interpretivesign depends on what Wilbur Shramm hascalled the “fraction of selection”:

Expectation of RewardFraction of Selection =

Effort Required

The larger the fraction for a particular sign, themore visitors will read it. Hence, the interpre-tive specialist must strive to maximize the frac-tion. This can be done by increasing theexpectation of reward or decreasing the effortrequired.

Writing styles can also affect reader interest. Ifthe style is very formal with unfamiliar words,the readers’ interest and expectation of rewardwill be low. Hence, messages should be writtenin a conversational style (second person),using personal words and personal sentences.

A long block of continuous text is uninvitingand discouraging. Therefore, if you want theaverage traveller to consider reading the mes-sage, it must be short and appear easy to read.Readability can be measured with tests such asthe Flesch Readability Scale or Write Formula.These are included in the appendix 2.

Well designed sign text and graphic combination

Simple clear message which raises visitor interest


Although brief messages are desirable, somesubjects require more text than others. Thepsychologically discouraging effect of seeing along block of text can be minimized by usinggenerous margins, large type, short lines, andshort paragraphs. The advertising industryoften uses a copy to background area ratio of60/40%. Subheadings should also be used to“break up” the text and help carry the storyalong. The reading ease of the text is alsoimproved by using short words and sentences.

A picture is worth a thousand words. This isespecially true for interpretive signs and labels.Pictures carry the message and are strongattention getters. Simple line drawings or dia-grams are best for maximum clarity andunderstanding.

Research studies of typographical factorsaffecting legibility provide guidelines fordecreasing the effort required to read print.Most research is based on standard readingdistances. However, several of the guidelinescan be safely generalized and applied to inter-pretive signs, which often require greaterviewing distances. Both the Design Guidelines forYukon Parks and Parks Canada provide suitableguidelines. Type size should be consistent withYukon target markets. For example, a highproportion of highway travellers are over 45years of age and eyesight deteriorates with age.Thus a larger type size with good colour con-trast is more readable to this user group.

The most legible colour combinations providehigh brightness contrast between letters andbackground. For labels, black letters on a yel-low background are better than red letters ona green background. Also, dark letters on alight background are better than light letterson a dark background. Hence, black on whiteis better than white on black. However, wherea sign is to be used in subdued light, such asin a forest or to be read at night, the light letteron a dark background will be easier to read.

Although no real difference in legibility existsbetween dull and glossy reading surfaces, peo-ple assume that dull surfaces promote legibili-ty, and prefer them to glossy surfaces. By pro-viding signs with dull finishes, you can elimi-nate reflection and glare and meet the expecta-tions of visitors.

The optimum angle of the reading surface toline of sight is 90 degrees. A deviation of as lit-tle as 15 degrees from this optimum can sig-nificantly decrease the efficiency of reading.Hence, interpretive signs should be oriented at90 degrees to the line of sight of the averagevisitor. Steps can be provided at podium-styleinterpretive signs, horizontal display cases, andother interpretive devices where children mayhave trouble viewing them.

Comprehension Level

Good Fair Poor

Layout with totally justified setting 67% 19% 14%

Layout with ragged right setting 38% 22% 40%

Layout with ragged left setting 10% 18% 72%

Text printed in Times Roman 70% 19% 11%

Text printed in Times Roman Bold 30% 20% 50%

Adapted from “Type of Layout” by Glin Wheildon, Strathmoor Press

Comprehension Level

Good Fair Poor

Layout with black headlines 67% 19% 14%

Layout using high chroma

color headlines 17% 18% 65%

Layout using low chroma


Text printed in black 70% 19% 11%

Low intensity text color

(deep purple, PMS 259) 51% 13% 36%

Medium intensity text color

(French blue, PMS 286) 29% 22% 49%

Muted text color

(olive green, PMS 399) 10% 13% 77%

High intensity text color

(cyan or warm red) 10% 9% 81%

Black text on 10% cyan tint 68% 24% 8%




Black text on 10% black 63% 22% 15%



Black text on white 70% 19% 11%

White text on black 0% 12% 88%

How Typographic Factors Affect Sign Legibilityand Reader Comprehension


The Main Sign Maintenance Issues Include:■ safety and public liability associated with the risk of accident

due to poor maintenance resulting in facility disrepair and van-dalism

■ sanitation including toilet eduction and garbage pick-up

■ parking and pull-off grading

■ seasonality and disproportionate frequency of use of some sites

■ aesthetics including the image of Yukon projected by the main-tenance standards adopted

■ costs associated with the above

■ maintenance responsibility

All modern uncluttered type faces or letterstyles such as Helvetica Medium, ScotchRopman, Garamond, or Antique are equallylegible. For maximum legibility, avoidAmerican Typewriter and the very decorativeor highly ornamented styles, such as OldEnglish, particularly in long blocks of text.Some letter styles are most appropriate withhistoric, scientific or artistic messages.

The most legible type form for interpretivesigns is lower case, bold face. Messages writtentotally in capitals or italics are harder to readand should be used only to give specialemphasis to a word, phrase, or sentence.

Site Inspection & Sign MaintenanceIssuesInterpretive sign maintenance breaks downinto two issues, site maintenance and signrepair. Both can be programmed to reflectdesign and construction standards as well aslevels of use. Inspection and maintenancestandards need to reflect program objectives,audience needs and service capabilities. Forexample, developing a maintenance programfor the Yukon River corridor is much moredifficult and costly than along the more acces-sible highway corridors where Highway main-tenance crews pass by sites while undertakingtheir regular duties. Visitor volumes alongrivers are minimal in comparison to roads andthus maintenance frequency can be adjustedaccordingly.

PrinciplesThe following maintenance principles shouldbe incorporated into the maintenance guide-lines adopted for Yukon interpretive signage:

■ the agency responsible for sign and sitedevelopment has the responsibility to setsite and sign maintenance standards inconjunction with the agencies asked totake on the maintenance responsibilities

■ the public agency (or private contractor)responsible for site and sign maintenanceshould be the agency best able to under-take that function in a cost effective man-ner

■ a standard inspection and maintenancerecord should be developed and main-tained for all interpretive signs and sites tofacilitate program evaluation and budget-ing

■ interpretive signs should be inspected atminimum at the beginning and end ofeach visitor season along highway corri-dors and at least once a year on the YukonRiver

4.3

4.3.1

Recommended Type SizesU.S. Park Service Guidelines

Vertical ViewingMeasurement Distance

10 mm 1 Meters13 mm 2 Meters60 mm 9 Meters100 mm 18 Meters

Titles

60 - 72 Point Minimum

Sub-titles


Body Text

24 Point Minimum

Captions

18 Point Minimum

“The agency responsible for sign and site development has theresponsibility to fund maintenance.”


Capital & Maintenance CostProjectionsSite development and maintenance cost pro-jections have been developed for each of thefive different sign categories. The chart to theleft shows the estimated basic capital costs fora minimum service package with upgradeoptions for supply and installation. Prices willof course vary with location and whether sitedevelopment work can be co-ordinated withhighway improvement projects. Individualsign installation costs exclusive of site develop-ment may range up to $3,000-further empha-sizing the need for carful construction coordi-nation and scheduling.

It is important that the sign fabricators in theDepartment of Renewable Resources andC&TS sign shops be brought into the feedbackloop so they can see how various materialsand fabrication processes are standing up touse. This helps solve problems such as UVlight weathering and varnish finish problemsexpeditiously. Field maintenance crews andconstruction staff often see simple ways to fixdesign problems based on their experienceand this expertise should not be overlooked.

For planning and budgeting purposes the fol-lowing lifespan standards can be applied:

■ signs 8-10 years■ toilets 5-8 years■ bear proof garbage containers 10 years■ tables and benches 5-8 years

A number of factors affect pull-off size andparking area configuration including:

■ level of anticipated use (i.e. volume)■ site conditions including proximity to fill■ type and combination of uses (i.e. interpre-

tive site and truck safety stop)■ visibility and access safety considerations

As a general guideline the following minimumsize standards would apply:

Minor Site (<400 m2) Major Site (>700 m2)■ 1 truck/tour bus ■ 2 trucks/tour buses

■ 2-3 RV’s ■ 5 RV’s

■ 3 vehicles ■ 5 vehicles

4.4

FAC

ILIT

YS

TAN

DA

RD

S

MIN

IMU

M S

ER

VIC

E P

AC

KA

GE

CO

ST

MA

GN

ITU

DE

MIN

IMU

M S

ER

VIC

E P

AC

KA

GE

UP

GR

AD

ES

*EX

PA

ND

ED

PA

RK

ING

AR

EA

*PA

VE

EX

IST

ING

PA

RK

ING

*HA

RD

SU

RFA

CE

AR

EA

S

*BO

LLA

RD

/PO

ST

S/B

OU

LDE

RS

*EX

PA

ND

ED

SIG

N F

EA

TU

RE

*PIC

NIC

TA

BLE

S

*BE

NC

H

*GR

AV

EL

TR

AIL

*BE

AR

PR

OO

F G

AR

BA

GE

CO

NTA

INE

R

*TO

ILE

TS

*VIE

W-D

EC

K

*BO

AR

DW

ALK

*OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

TO

WE

R

*WO

OD

STA

IRS

TE

RR

ITO

RIA

LS

ITE

- P

ULL

OF

F/P

AR

KIN

G

- B

EA

R P

RO

OF

GA

RB

AG

E C

ON

TAIN

ER

- W

ELC

OM

E T

OY

UK

ON

SIG

N F

EA

TU

RE

- Y

UK

ON

OR

IEN

TAT

ION

MA

P

- 1K

M S

ITE

AP

PR

OA

CH

SIG

N

- B

AS

IC S

ITE

DE

VE

LOP

ME

NT

- G

RA

VE

LP

ED

ES

TR

IAN

CIR

CU

LAT

ION

$24,

000.

00-$

28,0

00.0

0

$65/

m2

$25/

m2

$50/

m2

$25/

ea

$2,0

00/p

anel

$300

/ea

$500

/ea

$50/

m2

$1,0

00

RE

GIO

NA

LS

ITE

- P

ULL

OF

F/P

AR

KIN

G

- B

EA

R P

RO

OF

GA

RB

AG

E C

ON

TAIN

ER

- W

ELC

OM

E T

OY

UK

ON

SIG

N F

EA

TU

RE

- Y

UK

ON

OR

IEN

TAT

ION

MA

P

(may

or

may

not

be

inco

rpor

ated

into

the

disp

lay

kios

k)

- 1K

M S

ITE

AP

PR

OA

CH

SIG

N (

2)

- 10

0m S

ITE

AP

PR

OA

CH

SIG

N (

2)

- B

AS

IC S

ITE

DE

VE

LOP

ME

NT

- G

RA

VE

LP

ED

ES

TR

IAN

CIR

CU

LAT

ION

- T

OIL

ET

FAC

ILIT

Y(2

)

- P

ICN

IC T

AB

LE (

2)

$46,

000.

00-$

50,0

00.0

0

$65/

m2

$25/

m2

$50/

m2

$25/

ea

$2,5

00/p

anel

$300

/ea

$500

/ea

$50/

m2

$1,2

00

$2,0

00-5

,000

$50/

m2

$100

/m

$25,

000

$75/

m

CO

MM

UN

ITY

SIT

E

- P

ULL

OF

F/P

AR

KIN

G

- B

EA

R P

RO

OF

GA

RB

AG

E C

ON

TAIN

ER

- W

ELC

OM

E T

OY

UK

ON

SIG

N F

EA

TU

RE

- Y

UK

ON

OR

IEN

TAT

ION

MA

P

- 50

0m S

ITE

AP

PR

OA

CH

SIG

N

- B

AS

IC S

ITE

DE

VE

LOP

ME

NT

- G

RA

VE

LP

ED

ES

TR

IAN

CIR

CU

LAT

ION

$20,

000.

00-$

24,0

00.0

0

$65/

m2

$25/

m2

$50/

m2

$25/

ea

$2,0

00/p

anel

$300

/ea

$500

/ea

$50/

m2

$1,2

00

MA

JOR

- P

ULL

OF

F/P

AR

KIN

G

- B

EA

R P

RO

OF

GA

RB

AG

E C

ON

TAIN

ER

- IN

TE

RP

RE

TIV

E S

IGN

FE

AT

UR

E

- 1K

M S

ITE

AP

PR

OA

CH

SIG

N (

2)

- 10

0m S

ITE

AP

PR

OA

CH

SIG

N (

2)

- B

AS

IC S

ITE

DE

VE

LOP

ME

NT

- G

RA

VE

LP

ED

ES

TR

IAN

CIR

CU

LAT

ION

- T

OIL

ET

FAC

ILIT

Y(2

)

- P

ICN

IC T

AB

LE (

1)

$33,

000.

00-$

37,0

00.0

0

$65/

m2

$25/

m2

$50/

m2

$25/

ea

$2,5

00/p

anel

$300

/ea

$500

/ea

$50/

m2

$1,2

00

$2,0

00-5

,000

$50/

m2

$100

/m

$25,

000

$75/

m

MIN

OR

- P

ULL

OF

F/P

AR

KIN

G

- B

EA

RP

RO

OF

GA

RB

AG

E C

ON

TAIN

ER

- IN

TE

RP

RE

TIV

E S

IGN

FE

AT

UR

E

- 50

0m S

ITE

AP

PR

OA

CH

SIG

N (

2)

$17,

000.

00-$

21,0

00.0

0

$65/

m2

$25/

m2

$1,5

00/p

anel

$300

/ea

$50/

m2

$1,2

00

YU

KO

N IN

TE

RP

RE

TIV

E S

IGN

AG

EC

AP

ITA

LC

OS

TS

Co

sts

rep

rese

nt

esti

mat

ed p

rici

ng

fo

r su

pp

ly, a

nd

inst

alla

tio

n o

f ea

ch e

lem

ent.

Co

sts

do

no

tin

clu

de

des

ign

of

inte

rpre

tive

dis

pla

y fe

atu

res

or

dev

elo

pm

ent

of

inte

rpre

tive

mes

sag

es.


The chart to the right estimates the yearlyanticipated maintenance costs associated witheach site category. Maintenance costs will varysignificantly with level of use and degree ofdevelopment. For example, Five Finger Rapidsand Bove Island are popular stopping pointsand have higher general maintenance require-ments because of the level of use. However,even if physical visitor numbers are compara-ble, operating costs for the Five Finger Rapidssite will be higher because of the more exten-sive development that has taken place.

Lead time is a critical consideration for inter-departmental coordination to work effectively.Lead time considerations affect:

■ sign/site location planning■ materials fabrication purchase■ construction and maintenance scheduling■ capital planning■ volume of anticipated work

From sign conception to fabrication and erec-tion, allowing for the natural budgeting cyclewill take from 6 months to 1 year.

Based on existing sign inventory alone and a10 year replacement schedule, 12 to 15 signswill need to replaced annually. In addition a5% allowance should be included in the bud-get to cover exceptional situations such asvandalism replacement costs.

WE

EK

LYM

ay-S

ept.

BI-

WE

EK

LYA

pril

and

Oct

.

MO

NT

HLY

Nov

.-M

arch

MO

NT

HLY

May

-Sep

t.

BI-

MO

NT

HLY

Oct

.-A

pril

AN

NU

ALL

Y

TO

TAL

- E

MP

TY

GA

RB

AG

E C

ON

TAIN

ER

S-

PIC

K U

PLI

TT

ER

- B

RIE

F V

ISU

AL

CH

EC

K O

F S

ITE

and

RE

PO

RT

DA

MA

GE

- P

UM

PO

UT

TO

ILE

TS

*-

CH

EC

K F

OR

VA

ND

ALI

SM

and

RE

PA

IR-

CH

EC

K F

OR

GR

AF

FIT

I and

CLE

AN

- C

LEA

N IN

TE

RP

RE

TIV

E D

ISP

LAY

- F

ILL

OU

TM

ON

TH

LYM

AIN

TE

NA

NC

E R

EP

OR

T

- R

EG

RA

DE

GR

AV

EL

PU

LLO

FF

S-

SP

RIN

G C

LEA

N-U

P-

PR

E-S

TAIN

FU

RN

ISH

ING

S-

FALL

CH

EC

K-U

P

TE

RR

ITO

RIA

LS

ITE

RE

GIO

NA

LS

ITE

CO

MM

UN

ITY

SIT

EM

AJO

RM

INO

R

$700

.00

$700

.00

$700

.00

$700

.00

$700

.00

$300

.00

$450

.00

$300

.00

$400

.00

$300

.00

$200

.00

$300

.00

$200

.00

$300

.00

$200

.00

$2,0

00.0

0$2

,000

.00

$200

.00

$250

.00

$200

.00

$250

.00

$150

.00

$200

.00

$250

.00

$200

.00

$250

.00

$150

.00

$100

.00

$150

.00

$100

.00

$150

.00

$100

.00

$100

.00

$100

.00

$100

.00

$100

.00

$100

.00

$500

.00

$1,0

00.0

0$5

00.0

0$7

00.0

0$4

00.0

0$2

50.0

0$4

50.0

0$2

50.0

0$4

00.0

0$2

50.0

0$2

00.0

0$1

,000

.00

$500

.00

$450

.00

$200

.00

$160

.00

$400

.00

$200

.00

$300

.00

$100

.00

$2,0

00.0

0$7

,050

.00

$3,2

50.0

0$4

,200

.00

$2,6

50.0

0

SC

HE

DU

LEA

CT

IVIT

YY

EA

RLY

CO

ST

PE

R S

ITE

SP

EC

IFIC

INT

ER

PR

ET

IVE

SIT

E

* M

aint

enan

ce s

ched

ule

may

var

y de

pend

ing

on le

vel o

f use

. Tan

k pu

mp-

out c

osts

ave

rage

$10

0/to

ilet t

ank

YU

KO

N IN

TE

RP

RE

TIV

E S

IGN

AG

EO

PE

RA

TIO

N a

nd

MA

INT

EN

AN

CE

CO

ST

S


A sample of a suggested maintenance form isincluded . The form can be used in conjunc-tion with the automated database, but isintended more for day to day maintenancerecords. The redesigned form for the databasehas been set-up to allow the inspector toenter the data directly into a laptop computerat the time of the main inspections. The datacan then be downloaded to the main data-base to save time and expense.

Department of TourismDevelopment & RedevelopmentPrioritiesImplementation of the Interpretive StrategyFramework requires prioritization. The follow-ing recommendations provide direction onthe first steps for successful implementation ofthe new strategy. They include:

■ beginning immediately to apply the strate-gy to an assessment of current signrequests and establishing theInterdepartmental Sign Committee toreview the proposals

■ updating the new computerized databaseand records during the 1995 summerinspections to reflect the strategy and newrecord keeping format

■ assigning strategy hierarchy and outliningassociated rationale to all existing signsites

■ prioritizing major regional sites by corri-dor and confirming current deficienciesbased on the strategy

■ preparing graphic standards by category■ working with C&TS to improve warning

sign logo use and consistency■ identifying site rationalization needs and

applying co-operative managementarrangements to planning, program bud-geting and maintenance procedures

■ establishing program performance mea-sures to assess strategy implementationprogress

■ developing a test program to evaluateeffectiveness of new products (i.e. talkingsigns)

Conclusions

Site Location-Site Name

Agency Responsible

Sign No. Sign Category

Inspected by Date

Maintenance Standard

Inspection

Annual

Spring

Fall

3 Years

Problem

Cracks, Scratches, Tears

Ply Separation

Blisters, Rot, Corrosion

Missing

Unstable

Dirty

Recommendation (Remove/Replace, On-site or shop repair)

Site Condition Cleanliness On-site repair Shop repair Vandalised

Parking area

Site cleanliness

Outhouses & Waste Receptacles

Benches, Tables & Other

Decks & Railings

Remarks

Pan

el

Fac

e (O

verla

y &

Mes

sage

)

Fin

ish

(Pai

nt)

Pos

ts

Bra

ces

Har

dwar

e

(photo of sign-site goes here)

Yukon Interpretive Signage maintenance form

4.5


The Department of Tourism mandate forinterpretive signs is defined in the strategy. Itresponds to the primary need for programcoordination and formalizes a process forinter-agency cooperation. The present pro-gram has been re-organized to provide a sim-ple, logical structure with a hierarchy of sig-nage that allows program flexibility.

Accuracy, balance, diversity and representa-tiveness are the key concepts reflected in theprogram logic. A departmental mission state-ment has been prepared which defines theprogram mandate:

“To communicate an accurate, balancedand representative story promoting theYukon’s diversified natural and culturalheritage.”

The strategy provides guidelines for planning,design, capital budgeting and maintenance.Implementation priorities are explained and arationale provided for the standards put for-ward. The biggest program deficiency was thelack of attention to planning for sign replace-ment and on-going maintenance. Criteria arenow provided for site selection and programrationalization. A new computerized recordsystem has been developed to facilitate pro-gram management and annual budgeting.

Based on the existing sign inventory aloneand a 10 year replacement schedule, 12-15signs need to be replaced annually. The mostpressing new challenge is to improve regionalorientation signage at highway junctions.

“A picture is worth a thousand words”

4.6


BibliographyAlberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation. 1992.Signs for Park and Recreation Areas. CommunityRecreation and Sport Branch, Government ofAlberta.

Bufo Incorporated. 1992. Dempster HighwayInterpretation Graphic Image Guidelines. Departmentof Tourism, Government of Yukon.

IMC Consulting Group Inc. 1991. TheEffectiveness of Community Outdoor Mural Projects asTourism Attractions. Tourism IndustryAssociation of Alberta.

Juan de Fuca Environmental Consultants et.al. 1987. Recreation Features Inventory SouthernYukon. Department of Renewable Resources,Government of Yukon.

Manitoba Culture, Heritage & Citizenship.Using Signs to Interpret Community History. How-To Series #8, Historic Resources, Governmentof Manitoba.

McKim Baker Lovick BBDO. 1992.Psychographic Segmentation Study. Department ofTourism, Government of Yukon.

McSkimming & Associates. 1990. Inventory ofHighway Stopping Points. Department ofTourism, Government of Yukon.

Peepre, J.S. et. al. 1988. Recreation FeaturesInventory Northern Yukon. Department ofRenewable Resources, Government of Yukon.

Peepre, J.S. et. al. 1989. Dempster Highway CorridorInterpretive Strategy, Department of Tourism,Government of Yukon.

Renewable Resources. 1976. Design Guidelines forYukon Parks. Department of RenewableResources, Government of Yukon.

Saskatchewan Highways & Transportation.1994 Tourist Oriented Directional Signing Study.Technical Standards & Policy Branch,Department of Highways & Transportation,Government of Saskatchewan.

Trapp, Suzanne, Gross, Michael &Zimmerman, Ron. 1994. Signs, Trails and WaysideExhibits: Connecting People and Places. UW-SPFoundation Press, Stevens Pt. WI.

Tuak Environmental Services et. al. 1990.Strategic Plan for Wildlife Viewing in the Yukon.Department of Tourism, Government ofYukon.

Veverka, John A. 1994. Interpretive MasterPlanning. Falcon Press, Helena Mt.

Yukon Renewable Resources. 1995. Yukon’sWildlife Viewing Guide. Department ofRenewable Resources, Government of Yukon.


Appendix 1 - List of ContactsDepartment of Renewable ResourcesAfan Jones Outdoor Recreation PlannerGary Vantell Site PlannerJack Schick Parklands Interpretive PlannerPeter Frankish Regional SuperintendentHans Van De Werfhorst Workshop forepersonJames Armstrong SignmakerEd Leschart Park Facilities BuilderGraham Baird Wildlife Viewing BiologistJulie Lefebvre Wildlife Viewing Program TechnicianDave Mossop Senior Small Game Biologist

Department of TourismJohn Spicer Director Industry ServicesRobert Clark Development OfficerAkio Saito Development Officer (Dawson)Ed Krahn Museums AdvisorDoug Olynyk Historic Sites CoordinatorLouise Profeit-Leblanc Native Heritage AdvisorRobert Conrad Acting/Historic Sites PlannerGreg Hare Yukon ArchaeologistRuth Gotthardt Yukon ArchaeologistPierre Germain Market Research Officer

Community & Transportation ServicesRobert Magnuson Manager, Maintenance & PlanningMike McArthur Maintenance Service SupervisorBrian Tyhy Maintenance Planning TechnicianEileen Fraser Sign Shop SupervisorAllan Nixon Environmental Coordinator

IndustryDavid Moyle Executive Director TIAYPearle Callaghan Executive Director, First Nation

Tourism Industry Association of Yukon

Joe Muff Total Point Inc.Stephanie Churchhill Inkspirationz GraphicsJohn Russell Northwest Signs & GraphicsMike Lane Terra Firma Art CompanyDuane Fast Artcraft Advertising Ltd.Terry-Lynn Gold Sign ShopMarg Wallace Tundra Graphics & Silkscreen Ltd.

OtherDale Perry Former Interpretive Sign Program

CoordinatorWanda Hook Director, Industry Services, B.C.

Ministry of Small Business & CultureSarah Gaunt Champagne Aishihik First NationBrent Liddle Canadian Park ServicePeter Simlinger Graphic Designer, Vienna , AustriaChris Robinson Planning Advisor, Alberta Historic

Sites & Archives


Flesch Readability Scale1. Count the number of syllables in a 100 word sample (S).

2. Calculate the average number of words per sentence in the sample (W).

3. Calculate R = 206.835 - .846S - 1.015W.

4. Compare value to table:

Score Reading Ease

90-100 very easy

80-90 easy

70-80 fairly easy

60-70 standard

50-60 fairly difficult

30-50 difficult

0-30 very difficult

The Write Formula1. Count a 100 word sample2. Count all one-syllable words except “the”, “is”, “are”,

“was”, and “were”. Count one point for each one-syllable word.

3. Count the number of sentences in the 100-word sample to the nearest period or semicolon and give three points for each sentence.

4. Add together the one-syllable word count and the three points for each sentence to get your grade.If your piece has less than 100 words, multiply your tally to get the equivalent of 100.

Score Reading Ease

85-100 + Children’s Publications75-85 Average American Reader65-75 Above Averge American Reader

* A score of 80 is close to ideal.

Appendix 2 - Readability Formulas

Source: The Art of Readable Writing by Robert Flesch, 1949.

Source: Exhibits for the Small Museum, A Handbook, by Arminta Neal, 1976.


Appendix 3 - Strategy Application Alaska Highway South













Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51.1 Purpose of the Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . .61.2 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

2.0 Situation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92.1 Program History & Current

Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92.2 Program History Logic . . . . . . . . . . . .102.3 Program Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122.4 Summary of Program Issues . . . . . . .252.5 Interpretation Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

3.0 Interpretive Strategy ProgramFramework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .273.1 Program Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

4.0 Implementation Guidelines . . . .394.1 System Development Policy . . . . . . .394.2 Signage Design & Materials

Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .414.3 Site Inspection & Maintenance

Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .464.4 Capital & Maintenance Cost

Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .474.5 Development & Redevelopment

Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .494.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52



For

Heritage BranchTourism Yukon

By

Inukshuk Planning & Development

In Association With

EDA Collaborative Inc.Lynxpaw ServicesAasman Design

July 1995



Executive SummaryThe Government of Yukon erects interpretivesigns to give residents and visitors alike, anawareness of the mosaic of Yukon natural, cul-tural and historic features. They are a simple,cost effective, year-round communicationtechnique to inform, interest and educate theviewer.

The new sign strategy recognizes theDepartment can not work alone. Tourism doesnot have an exclusive program for interpretivesignage. It must work co-operatively withother partners especially the departments ofRenewable Resources and Community &Transportation Services to deliver a cost-effec-tive and informative program.

Key concepts behind the new program logicinclude: accuracy, balance, diversity, flexibilityand representativeness. The program frame-work is organizational by focus, building onwhat currently exists rather than developing anew structure. This reflects the nature of theissues uncovered in the situation analysis andthe general utility of existing signage initiatives.Sign purpose, location, sign/site relationshipsand cost need to be considered together.

The program logic also provides a comprehen-sive framework for new site selection, siterationalization, construction planning and signmaintenance. A new records format has beendeveloped and the existing records convertedto a user-friendly, computerized databaseaccessible to all user departments.

For the first time, guidelines for site furnishingssuch as garbage receptacles and toilets are set.The ongoing site maintenance costs associatedwith sign placement are acknowledged to bepart of overall program cost. They are to benegotiated between the departments accordingto their respective maintenance capabilities.

The framework provides direction on whatprogram parameters are needed to provideorder, image continuity and effective messagedelivery to meet user needs. The sign strategysuggests unifying elements and offers guide-lines instead of prescriptive standards.Guidelines cover sign design, materials applica-tion, readability and use of site furnishings.

A comprehensive program logic is spelled outfor the first time. Site inspection and mainte-nance principles have been developed inresponse to the need for an integrated data-base and resolution of long-standing mainte-nance concerns. Capital and O&M cost projec-tions have been prepared for all program ele-ments and a 8-10 year life-cycle standard set.This means that 12 -15 signs will need to bereplaced annually.

Department of Tourism Interpretive Sign Mandate

“To communicate an accurate, balanced and representative storypromoting the Yukon’s diversified natural and cultural heritage.”


A signage hierarchy is proposed because thereare limits to program growth and a pointwhere sign saturation begins. This can now bedefined by applying the principles in the strate-gy. The hierarchy has four levels.

At the territorial level this involves bordercrossing signs with a territory wide focus.Regional signage focuses on corridor or areakey features. Logical locations include highwayjunctions, features of regional significance andecoregion boundary points where regional dif-ferences are most apparent.

Community level signage tells community sto-ries. The Department of Tourism has only anadvisory role. The department provides techni-cal assistance on request if there is an interpre-tive or regional orientation component. Thisavoids duplication and gives communities bothdesign freedom and the ability to include acommercial component in any signage endeav-or.

The fourth category of signage is site specific. Itcan be subdivided into major and minor siteswith a distinction made between roadside andbackcountry or river corridor sites. This isimportant because it recognizes the differentexperiential priorities of the river corridor trav-eller as well as the practical maintenance reali-ties. Five Finger Rapids is an example of amajor site while Takhini Crossing would be aminor roadside site. Stewart Island andHootalinqua would be typical minor andmajor river sites.

An inter-departmental signage committee man-agement structure is recommended. It providesa mechanism to co-ordinate signage initiatives,and discuss related issues such as site rational-ization and maintenance. Roles and responsi-bilities are dictated by the type of application,interpretative function, agency capabilities andmandate. A common process is included forthe review of all interpretative sign applications.

Establishment of the interdepartmental signcommittee is identified as a priority. During thesummer of 1995, all sites should be inspectedand the records updated to reflect the newcomputerized format. Sites will be categorizedto reflect the strategy hierarchy with regionaldeficiencies identified and site rationalizationpriorities established. Graphic standards willalso need to be prepared for each sign catego-ry. The strategy recommends program perfor-mance measures be adopted to cover mattersranging from site spacing distance to mainte-nance frequency and program rationalization.Program deficiencies are identified in the reportwith priorities for resolution recommended.The most pressing program deficiency requir-ing attention involves regional orientation sig-nage at major highway junctions.

Interpretive Opportunities Currently RepresentedIn The Yukon Sign Inventory

■ territorial entrance identification

■ orientation, information and warning

■ points of interest, safety and recreation area rest-stops


■ historic use; natural and cultural features






Effective interpretive signage improves visitorexperience in a variety of ways. First, signs aresilent, 24 hour-a-day, four season, communi-cation tools providing direction, identificationand information of interest to the traveller.Exhibit signage enhances visitor understandingand experience through learning at leisure.These signs stimulate visitor interest in theYukon’s natural, cultural and historic featuresby the stories they tell.

Interpretive signage and wayside exhibits alsohave a third, more subtle purpose, especiallyalong highway corridors. They can delay trav-ellers, thus extending their stay within theregion and increasing the likelihood of themspending money locally. This objective is par-ticularly relevant to the Yukon where themajority of visitors are Alaska-bound.

The quality, appearance and frequency ofinterpretive signage and wayside exhibitsinfluences the visitor’s impressions and imageof the Yukon. Done well, they complementother marketing initiatives and can motivate achange in behavior. For example, the visitorenroute to Dawson may divert for a side tripdown the “Silver Trail” to Elsa and Mayobecause of the exhibit at Stewart Crossing. Theextra day spent in the area puts from $65.00 to$100.00 directly into the community economy.

The reaction of the highway traveller andbackcountry user to signage along a trail orriver may differ. The backcountry, wildernesstraveller may perceive such signage as aninappropriate intrusion, out of context withthe environment. Signage and site develop-ment policy must respect and respond to arange of visitor needs.

A working definition of both a sign and awayside exhibit is needed to put the Yukonsign program in perspective. The followingdefinitions have been used.1

■ A Sign is an inscribed board, plate, orspace that provides information, warningor guidance

■ A Wayside Exhibit interprets features orevents on a site to develop a theme or astory and differs from a sign by providingexplanations

The Yukon has one of the most comprehen-sive interpretive sign programs in the country.

A typical Sign is an inscribed board, plate, or space that provides information,warning or guidance

Introduction 1.0

A typical Wayside Exhibit interprets features or events on a site to develop atheme or a story and differs from a sign by providing explanations

1 Trapp, S., Gross, M & Zimmerman, R. Signs, Trails and Wayside Exhibits:Connecting People and Places Interpretive Handbook Series, University ofWisconsin 1994


There are 203 signs at approximately 125 sitescontained in the database illustrating a broadrange of themes about Yukon geography, nat-ural and cultural history. With the exception ofthe Yukon River and Herschel Island, the signsare located along the main highway corridors.

Purpose of the StrategyThis strategy defines the roles and responsibili-ties of the Department of Tourism for interpre-tive signage. It provides a comprehensive pro-gram framework and logic for site selection,design, construction and maintenance ofYukon interpretive signage. It recognizes fromthe outset that the Department of Tourismdoes not have an exclusive mandate for sig-nage program delivery and must work co-operatively with the departments ofRenewable Resources (RR) and Community &Transportation Services (C&TS) to deliver acost-effective and informative program thatresponds to visitor needs. The strategy pro-vides a framework for interdepartmental com-munication and cooperation.

Over the past 15 years, Tourism Yukon hasinstalled interpretive signage along Yukonhighways and the Yukon River. Both thedepartments of Community & TransportationServices and Renewable Resources have beenpartners in this process and continue to devel-op programs of their own. For example, C&TShas erected new anti-litter signage and adopt-ed a policy concerning the use of symbologystandards. The department has also developeda series of truck pull-offs in response to newfederal regulations limiting trucker drivingtimes. In 1994 C&TS also completed a policyreview of commercial signage along Yukonhighways. One solution, generally favored bythe department and supported by many atcommunity meetings, would see the develop-ment of a standard community informationkiosk.

Renewable Resources initiated a very success-ful, Yukon-wide Wildlife Viewing Program in1991 which relies heavily on the developmentof wayside exhibits at key locations. All thesetypes of initiatives have implications for theplacement of interpretive signs and site selec-tion.

A number of key events makes the prepara-tion of a departmental interpretive signagestrategy a timely initiative. These include:

■ completion of regional tourism strategiesemphasizing the role and value of inter-pretive signage and point-of-interest sitedevelopment

Example of signage from Renewable Resources’ successful Wildlife Viewing program

New anti-litter signage fromCommunity and Transportation Services

1.1

The current system has a variety of problems including sign placement andfrequency, materials choice, style and form


■ signing of an interdepartmentalMemorandum of Understanding betweenthe three departments covering develop-ment and maintenance of pull-offs, points-of-interest and recreation sites in 1990

■ completion of strategic plans for wildlifeviewing, and interpretation of theDempster Highway Corridor

■ completion of a highway stopping pointinventory (McSkimming 1990), and signinventory of the 125 existing sites (Tourism1994)

■ replacement of the Alaska Highway “mile-posts” in 1992 and development of a newstyle of Point of Interest site (i.e. BoveIsland, Kluane River)

A decade of anniversary commemorationsalso started in 1992 making interpretive sig-nage a government priority. The 1994 siteinventory review revealed a number of issueswhich warrant program re-evaluation. Somesignage is acknowledged to be redundant, out-of-date and in poor condition. Site selectionand development standards vary considerablyreflecting uncertainty concerning site purposeor agency mandate. Some interpretive themes(i.e. Gold Rush) are well represented; others arenot (i.e. First Nation’s cultural history).

Sign development and maintenance has beena shared responsibility with RenewableResources and C&TS because these depart-ments have the ability to utilize crews for con-struction and maintenance. Capital and O&Mcosts are increasingly straining the existingpartnership budgets. Certain issues such assupporting infrastructure (i.e. pull-off mainte-nance, outhouse eduction, and garbage dis-posal) are an ongoing headache. Site furniturestandards need to be applied in a consistentmanner. Also, no spacing distances exist sothere is no sense of order and hierarchy.

All completed regional plans encourage con-struction of additional roadside pull-offs,viewpoints, and signs as part of their “regionalimage”. This creates an expectation that theprogram can be easily expanded withoutacknowledging the ensuing capital and main-tenance costs which arise.

ApproachThe approach used to develop the strategy isdescribed to the left. The process involved areview of the sign inventory photographicrecords, interviews with affected agencies anda sample of affected sign users to determinethe main issues. The existing program wasanalyzed to identify strengths and weaknesses,determine previous program logic and currentoperating procedures.

The strategy answers many questions about:■ the strengths and weaknesses of the existing interpretive signage

program

■ the main issues involved in program delivery

■ opportunities to improve effective program delivery

■ the present capital and O&M costs and what refurbishment of theexisting infrastructure will involve

■ how program co-ordination, signage, site development quality,and interpretive effectiveness can be improved while controllingcosts

■ what the role and responsibilities of the Department of Tourismshould be

■ what heritage themes should be represented in a Yukon-wideinterpretive strategy and whether they should be presented on aregional or corridor basis

■ whether there should be a uniform standard for all interpretivefacilities or the regionally based approach continued

1.2

REVIEW EXISTING DATA

IDENTIFY GAPS

ANALYZE PROGRAM ELEMENTS


MISSION STATEMENT PROGRAM LOGIC

PHASE 2. STRATEGY FRAMEWORK

PHASE 3. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND

SITUATION GUIDELINES

PROPOSED STRATEGY FRAMEWORK


DATA FILE AND MAPPING

RECOMMENDATIONS

FINAL REPORT

DESIGN GUIDELINES

O & M PRINCIPLES

Study Process

PHASE 1. SITUATION ANALYSIS


The degree of reliance on inter-agency partici-pation and the need for co-operation wasvery quickly apparent. For this reason, theapproach was adjusted to bring the otheraffected departments into the planning andproject review process.

Opportunities and constraints to programoperation were identified and current interpre-tive trends researched. Program costs werealso tabulated. A new data base records sys-tem was designed to meet all potential userneeds and the conversion process initiated.This resulted in a situation analysis reportwhich was reviewed by interdepartmental rep-resentatives.

In stage two, a preliminary strategy and pro-gram framework was developed based onmarket needs. The proposed strategy is basedon a market-driven approach. A mission state-ment clarifying roles, responsibilities and pro-gram objectives followed, based on a partner-ship focus. An organizational sign hierarchy,principal interpretive themes and general signand site development policy were then created.The results were summarized in a Concept &Principles Report and reviewed by the SteeringCommittee.

The final project phase involved preparing animplementation strategy and working processfor interdepartmental co-operation. Directionon general design guidelines, program priori-ties and associated cost projections have beenformalized to facilitate program operation andmaintenance. Sketches, graphs and charts illus-trate the strategy, taking into account a rangeof possible users.

This final report summarizes the new programlogic and provides a blueprint for future pro-gram operation including existing site rational-ization.

A new computerized data base system was assembled

Typical Interpretive Sign prior to 1985


Program History & CurrentSituationThe program has evolved over the past 15years. It started as a series of simple, verticalwood routed panels identifying Gold Rush erafeatures near Dawson. The next series of signsfocused on the Yukon River, the Alaska andKlondike highways. These initial signs wereintended to provide basic information andencourage visitors to “take a break” as theyheaded north to Alaska or “down river” toDawson.

During the initial years the majority of fundingsupport came through a Federal-TerritorialTourism Development Agreement. By the late1980’s, the department experimented with theuse of different sign construction materials andbegan to develop wayside exhibits at key fea-tures.

The role of the signage program is changingwith a greater emphasis on interpretive storiesrather than a single message. The focus is nowmore on wayside exhibit development andregional orientation in support of completedregional tourism plans. These new regionaltourism strategies recognize the value of signsand wayside exhibits (i.e. Campbell Region).They aid visitor awareness of an area’s attrib-utes and may cause visitors to alter their travelplans.

Yukon interpretive signage has evolved fromsimple, routed message boards to complexporcelain enamel panels complete with pho-tographs and rendered artwork.

The mid-eighties also saw many communitiesadopt mainstreet improvement programs thatincluded community entrance signs and avariety of interpretive signs and waysideexhibits. Many of these community initiativeswere undertaken with the help of Tourism andParks Branch staff. The Watson Lake Sign PostForest and Burwash Landing gold pan are twoexamples that have become tourism “sign”attractions in their own right.

Strategic interpretive planning evolved in thelate 1980’s as planning for the Alaska Highway50th Anniversary got underway. A DempsterHighway Interpretive Strategy was initiatedresulting in the adoption of a consistent motifand interpretive theme developed in conjunc-tion with the Government of the NorthwestTerritories. The focus also shifted to orientationexhibits highlighting several regional themes.For the first time, a comprehensive Yukon-wide strategic planning approach was used todevelop a wildlife viewing program.

Recent regional tourism strategies encourage the use of regional orientation signs to“delay” or “divert” visitors

A greater recognition of First Nations history

Attractions in their own right, above and below

Situation Analysis 2.0

2.1


This program places a heavy emphasis on theuse of interpretive signage at key locationswith the added dimension of short interpretivetrails at many sites. This program has beendeveloped by the Department of RenewableResources and whenever possible, integratedinto sites developed by Tourism or otheragencies.

Another notable change in theme develop-ment was the greater recognition given to FirstNations history and their increasing involve-ment in all aspects of interpretive planningfrom site location to sign content (i.e. Teslin,Kluane river sites).

Program History LogicThe files contain little information concerningthe original program logic. It would appearthat the primary motivator was a desire toimprove basic visitor information and aware-ness of Yukon geography and history.Anecdotal comments suggest that manyYukoners were frustrated by the number ofvisitors who had little idea of whether theywere in the Yukon or Alaska. Others suggestthe initial objective was to provide some uni-formity to the mixture of signage already inplace and some message consistency.

Archival correspondence also implies thatsigns were seen as a way of providing the visi-tor with a “break” during the drive and as ameans of encouraging visitors to linger longerin the Yukon. The wood routed fabricated signformat first began to appear on a regular basisduring the forties across North America and isstill in use in many jurisdictions today. Theyremain simple to fabricate, inexpensive to pro-duce and are very durable. They were intro-duced into the Yukon in the late seventies. Asnew space-age products have become avail-able, their use has declined.

The diversity of signs in the early years sug-gests that the attributes of the individual sitehistory dictated the sign message rather thanany conscious attempt to reflect a particulartheme. A simple routed sign panel hungbetween two posts and a cross beam was typ-ically used. The signs were erected where mostconvenient and often out of context with theirsurroundings.

While the installation structure subsequentlychanged and different materials have beentried, there is no indication of how and whythese changes were made. In some cases suchas the mounting method for vertical signs, costand simplicity seem to be the rationale. The1976 Parks Design Standards Manual and ParksCanada guidelines appear to have been usedas general reference documents.

2.2

An alternative to a traditional wood sign; the low profile and use of natural materials lets the sign blend into its surroundings on the Dempster Highway

Historic building signage no longer used


It would appear that many of the sites selectedfor interpretation had obvious attributes suchas historical buildings, natural viewpoints oranother existing use such as a grader turnaround. It also looks as if the topic selected forinterpretation during the program’s formativeyears reflected the site’s main feature.

No reference can be found which explains thelogic behind the adoption of the use of partic-ular warning sign symbols though they tend toreflect interpretation trends of the period. Thisis not surprising because there was little con-sistency in symbol usage across the country. At one point in the late eighties, the camerasymbol was replaced with words identifyingthe type of site. It would have made moresense to use the word and logo in combinationon the first few warning signs the visitorencountered on entering the Yukon. Thiswould have explained the symbol meaning.But since this was not done, the questionremains—why?

The files contain references to the developmentof internal departmental policy involving thesign program. The first, Guidelines for SpecialFeature Signs Contribution Agreements (October1989) was created to respond to unsolicitedrequests for special features signs which couldnot be funded under existing programs. Theregional tourism strategy would dictate contri-bution funding priority. The proposed signmust complement and not duplicate the exist-ing departmental signage initiatives.

The department agreed to provide a one timecapital cost contribution of up to $1,000.00 fora specific sign project. The agreement was for-mally used twice, first with the Government ofthe Northwest Territories for a sign on theKlondike River encouraging visitors to take theDempster Highway and visit the NorthwestTerritories. The Yukon Fish & GameAssociation also entered into an agreement toproduce and erect direction signs to stockedlakes.

Following a complaint from a highway lodgewhich objected to the development of the“Icefield Ranges” interpretive site, theGovernment developed a policy which saidsuch sites would not be developed within ahalf kilometer of existing tourist related busi-nesses on private land. Also, no site would bedeveloped within 1 kilometer without theirinput and agreement unless there was no suit-able alternative. The other exception involvedmajor highway intersections where regionalorientation kiosks might be located.

The general lack of information concerningprogram logic and the basis for program deci-sions has meant the new strategy must bedeveloped from scratch.

A sign that resulted from a one-time only funding agreement

“With the exception of the Wildlife Viewing Program, noresearch appears to have been done to determine whatvisitors wanted.”

Johnson Crossing a typical highway lodge


Program Issues

Agency Roles & ResponsibilitiesThe key to the sign program has always beenthe degree of interagency support and co-operation. Renewable Resources (ParksBranch) has assisted in site selection, undertak-en routed sign construction and erection andassisted with maintenance.

C & TS has modified and reconstructed pull-outs, fabricated and erected warning signs, andassisted with site maintenance. Much of theearly work was done at cost and with a hand-shake using existing resources. However, ascosts have risen and associated site infrastruc-ture become more elaborate, informal arrange-ments have become less and less prevalent.This reflects the realities of today’s budgetrestraints with the commensurate reduction ofstaff resources as well as the growth of theprogram.

Much of the focus over the past 15 years hasbeen on putting the basic infrastructure ele-ments in place. Little attention has been givento the planning required to manage mainte-nance costs and anticipate eventual replace-ment. In 1995, the focus is now shiftingtowards program rationalization and thestrategic planning overlooked in the earlyyears.

Three Yukon government departments aredirectly involved in some aspect of the inter-pretive signage program. Others, includingFirst Nations, the Canadian Parks Service, vari-ous municipalities, interest groups and theadjoining jurisdictions of Alaska, BritishColumbia and the Northwest Territories arealso involved in some interpretive signageprojects.

The level of involvement and role of eachagency reflects both its operating authorityand in-house capabilities. Both Highways andParks have sign fabrication capabilities andmaintenance crews. Parks focuses on sand-blasted and routed signs while Highways pro-duces standard aluminum silk-screened or diecut vinyl and MDO plywood signs primarilyfor traffic-related purposes. Highways has yearround maintenance crews while Parks oper-ates on a seasonal basis except in the shop.

In recent years both Tourism and RenewableResources (Wildlife Viewing Program) areincreasingly using outside companies for signfabrication. These porcelain enamel signs can-not be produced in-house or by Yukon man-ufacturers at this time.

2.3

2.3.1

Renewable Parks & Recreation • all aspects within parks and campResources Sites grounds including planning, •Parks Wildlife Viewing • construction & maintenance•Wildlife program lead role wildlife viewing program,

• partnership role includes technicalassistance, sign manufacturing, siteconstruction and maintenance

Tourism•Heritage Interpretive • non-commercial signage

program • all aspects heritage sites, lead role management.cultural

•Industry Regional tourism • interpretation and points of interest,Services planning erection tourism promotion signage

• relies on Parks and C&TS fortechnical assistance, site develop-ment and maintenance

C&TS•Transportation Traffic safety, Pull-out • final authority on land use within

Engineering location, design highway ROW including erection •Transportation Land use permit of commercial signage,

Maintenance within ROW • manufactures warning, directional,Maintenance & regulatory signage, builds pull

outs and provides maintenance assistance; develops truck safety rest-stops

• community/roadside serviceswarning signs

Sign Roles &Agency Mandate Responsibilities

Summary of Roles and Primary Responsibilities

Queen's Printer

Interpretive Signage

CanadianPark Service Municipalities

Interest GroupsAlaska, B.C., N.W.T.

Renew

able

Resource

s Tourism

Community &Transportation

Services

First Nations


Since the Department of Tourism does nothave a construction or maintenance capability,it must rely on either Parks or Highways crewsto perform ongoing site maintenance such assurface grading and garbage pick-up. Bothagencies are usually involved in site construc-tion and sign erection to some degree.

In 1990 the three main agencies affected,(Tourism, Renewable Resources and C&TS)negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) concerning the planning, developmentand maintenance of public facilities alongYukon highways. The impetus for this agree-ment came from a recognition that the contin-uing demand for new wayside exhibit siteswas creating problems for all the agenciesinvolved and some program rationalizationwas needed to keep maintenance costs undercontrol.

The MOU recognized that “the departmentscurrently cooperate on an ad hoc, but com-plementary fashion”2. Tourism historically hasfocused on the development of Points ofInterest sites for visitors, while Highwaysfocused on the development of truck safetyand community entry rest-stops. RenewableResources focused on campground develop-ment and outdoor recreation sites.

Highway reconstruction has created a numberof opportunities to develop pull-outs at nomi-nal cost when the work can be co-ordinatedwith other agencies. Peepre (1988) noted anumber of program deficiencies in hisRecreation Activities System Planning Study thatcould be resolved through better program co-ordination. Concerns included duplication ofpull-outs, poor or unattractive settings, accessand egress safety issues, poor maintenanceand inappropriate facilities. The Peepre studydoes not indicate which specific sites need tobe re-examined nor does it cover all corridors.

The need to formalize many of the existinginformal arrangements has largely been cost-driven as previously noted. The absence of aclear policy framework complicates the issuewhen program rationalization is required.New programs such as the wildlife viewinginitiative fill interpretive gaps, yet begin tocloud boundaries between agency responsibil-ities. For example, the advance warning signfor the Takhini Burn site includes both thewildlife viewing and camera symbols as thesite involves both agency’s elements. Whileperhaps a logical enough compromise to eachagency’s goals, one is left to question whetherthis solution is effective or confusing to thepublic it is intended to serve.

2 Interdepartmental MOU Guidelines for the Development & Maintenance ofPull-Offs/Points of interest/Recreation Sites, July 12, 1990

Typical outdoor recreation site

A demand for more garbage cans and washroom facilities along the highwayshas created a range of ongoing maintenance requirements


One of the most notable public concernsraised in agency interviews is the proliferationand use of formal and informal pull-outs forunintended purposes such as overnight camp-ing. During the past year all borrow pits andpull-outs have been signed with a list of “no’s”.Site problems have included garbage and RVholding tank discharge. This has led to ademand for more garbage cans and wash-room facilities along Yukon highways. Theongoing maintenance requirements mayexceed the value of the signage itself. Notevery site which has a sign needs to beaccompanied by such facilities.

From our research it is clear that interpretivesignage is accepted as an area where interde-partmental co-operation is essential. Goodcommunication is essential regardless of whichagency has any individual project lead. Signsmust be looked in context with the site wherethey are erected and the subsequent ongoingassociated maintenance costs.

Thus from the Department of Tourism’s per-spective the following issues require resolutionbecause the department is dependent on oth-ers for program implementation.

Theme RepresentationNine broad thematic categories have beenidentified in the existing sign inventory. Thisanalysis suggests that overall, the current pro-gram covers a range of themes that would beof interest to visitors and residents alike.However, it is important to put this represen-tation in context. There does not appear to beany glaring omissions or significant duplica-tion of interpretive messages except for theAlaska Highway signage program.

Some sign copy is dated and reflects a particu-lar historical perspective. First Nations historyand land occupancy is certainly better repre-sented in the last five years than in earlieryears. There also appears to be a better bal-ance between natural and cultural historytheme representation with the most recentmajor site development projects (i.e. TakhiniBurn, Kluane River) than with earlier projects.

In a spatial context, sign representationappears reasonable at first glance, averagingbetween 20 and 40 kilometers on the AlaskaHighway and 25 kilometers on the KlondikeHighway. However on the Alaska Highwaythere are some obvious anomalies with signspacing as close as 1 kilometer to as much as130 kilometers apart. Sign spacing on theYukon River averages 67.5 kilometers. This isabout right for the wilderness canoeist as itoffers diversion without overly compromisingthe sense of “wilderness” so important to theoverall trip experience.

2.3.2

Thematic Representation MatrixThematic Category

Historic-Settlement

Historic-Exploration & Mining; General

Historic-Exploration & Mining;�Klondike Gold Rush

Historic-Transportation &� Communication; Alaska Hwy.Historic-General

First Nations History

Natural History

Number of Signs

41

14

12

25

20

12

12

Degree of Representation

generally good, but not all communities represented directly especially Watson Lake, Whitehorse and Haines Junction

fair but dated and not in context with impacts or importance to Yukon economyadequate in the Dawson area and most often mentioned influence on other related signage

adequate from post gold rush period but incomplete from First nation perspectiveAlaska Highway Anniversary signage has filled in gaps; well representedhas potential for further developmentunder-represented, notable improvement from 1988 on

Regional Orientation

Site identification�(non-interpretation)

Note: Signs may be listed in more than one category given nature of sign content

Historic-Transportation &� Communication;

21

14

40

opportunity for expansion, with more emphasis on ecology; significant improvement through Wildlife Viewing Program

weak but improving; more work needed at major hwy. intersection points24 of 31 signs related to Alaska Hwy. milepost program, 9 are border crossing signs and 6 identify major sites

The Main Sign Development QuestionsIdentified Include:

■ how many and what types of wayside exhibits and interpretivesigns are needed before saturation is reached?

■ where can departmental efforts best be focused and what is theimage the department wants to project?

■ should the program be “market driven” by visitor needs or“education” driven by interpretive objectives?

■ what, if any, is the present standard interpretive sign/exhibitdesign format, hierarchy, construction method and expectedlifespan and what should it be?

■ where can sites be combined to reduce costs and avoid duplica-tion such as regional orientation sites at highway junctions?

■ what are the ongoing maintenance costs likely to be and howshould these costs be planned for and budgeted where otheragencies are doing the work?

■ can one interagency sign committee be the forum for interpretivesignage planning and, if so, is the present structure workable?


The Campbell, Canol, and Nahanni RangeRoad corridors are poorly represented and thisseems to reflect their current low traffic loads.Certainly in the late eighties the priority wasupgrading the Alaska and Klondike highwaycorridors before the 1992 anniversary com-memorating highway construction.

The location of existing pull-outs and signsalong the study corridors are illustrated in theappendices.

Audience ApplicabilityLittle direct work has been conducted on visi-tor perspectives concerning the sign program.The 1987 Visitor Exit Survey (VES) is usuallyreferenced and there may be relevant informa-tion in the 1994 survey when the results arefully analyzed.

In 1994 Tourism staff prepared a sign surveythat was administered on random visits to 26different sites during July. 113 parties wereinterviewed to determine the level of aware-ness, how the sites are used and why peoplestop. The questions also addressed issues suchas spacing distance, the utility of warning signsand whether the sites and signs met visitorneeds. Given the small sample size and the sur-vey method, the study authors caution theuser not to over-generalize the results.

With that caution in mind, and recognizingthat such a survey had not been conductedbefore, the results are interesting. First, visitorsare aware of the sites and their general pur-pose. They are being used for a variety of rea-sons, including taking a rest. Good views islisted as being the dominant reason for stop-ping.

High view sites such as Bove Island and FiveFinger Rapids score much higher than similar-ly developed sites at Rancheria Falls andKluane Lake. The data also suggests that sitessuch as the Tintina Trench, which is relativelypoorly developed, should be upgradedbecause it is already a major stopping point. Itis also a location with known potential forrecreational site development.

The majority of participants indicated therewas an adequate number of sites and a goodbalance in the amount and quality of informa-tion provided on the signs. There did not seemto be a preference either way for wood routedor laminated panels. It is not clear whetherviewers recognize that the vertical panels aremeant to be read from vehicles during a briefstop as opposed to the panel stands where theviewer is encouraged to leave the vehicle. Mostsites are visited for under 20 minutes. The sur-vey does not differentiate between time spentat major sites such as Teslin Lake or minor sitessuch as Takhini Crossing.

2.3.3

The Main Agency Planning Issues Include:■ the need to establish spacing criteria and site development priorities

■ the need to co-ordinate new sign erection or replacement with roadredevelopment schedules where possible

■ the need for site and sign rationalization with a hierarchy respon-sive to visitor profiles and needs

■ the need to clarify inter-program relationships where a corridorinterpretive strategy is in place

■ the role (if any) that the Tourism sign program should play in theprovision of special, tourism related, directional/orientation signsfor local communities and interest groups

■ the extent of departmental assistance that should be provided tolocal groups or communities wanting to erect historical and inter-pretive signs

Visitors generally preferred international symbols be used on warning signs

Good site selection and planning meets visitor needs and interpretation objectives


The majority of respondents had little difficultyfinding the sites and generally preferred the useof international symbols on warning signs.Views on their placement differed with a pref-erence for a 2 km. and 100 metre placementdistance. Suggested improvements includedmaking these signs larger, naming them andindicating which side of the road they are on.

A number of people use the Milepost as thestandard reference text which suggests thathow and where the sites are advertised is animportant consideration. The Wildlife Viewingprogram for example has copied this tech-nique and produced a guide book for its sitesbecause this approach has proven popular inother jurisdictions. There does not appear tobe any indication of whether the references inthe current Yukon roadmap have improvedvisitor awareness.

This is a good example of the general movetowards more strategic thinking because ittakes advantage of the opportunity to integrateinterpretation goals into publications com-monly used by visitors.

In the 1994 survey, respondents indicated thatwashrooms, garbage bins and possibly picnictables are appreciated at major sites but notthat necessary at minor points. Since the pro-vision of these facilities has major cost impli-cations, their placement needs to be carefullyconsidered. Sizing and maintenance activityare also influenced by the level of use.

The current priority Yukon tourism marketsare illustrated on the next chart. We know thattour bus companies stop at a variety of sitesalong the way but the number of stops is dic-tated by fixed daily travel distances. Thus,buses leaving Watson Lake or Skagway haveWhitehorse as the next overnight stop fol-lowed by Dawson and Beaver Creek. This lim-its the number of en route stops possible.Independent travellers have more flexibilityand travel distance varies considerablydepending on whether the traveller has a defi-nite schedule or not.

As a general rule of thumb, there is a correla-tion between en route time, distance travelledand the probability of stopping. Thus thechance of stopping is greater after an hour oftravel than it is after 15 minutes, all other fac-tors being equal.

The form, copy size, print to background con-trast and font size all influence sign readability.Other factors such as the plaque placementangle influence readability and durability. Forexample a vertical sign is generally unaffectedby sun angles where an angled sign is, espe-cially if the copy/background contrast is notsharp.

Visitors find high view sites like Bove Island (above) more interesting than similardeveloped sites such as Kluane Lake (below)

Style 15% • enjoy risk, danger and change in their livesConscious • Trend-setters, seek variety in destinations; Adventurers will “rough it”(SCA’s) • Travel frequently; spend most of any segment

• Tend to be young, male and single• Most are in western Canada (22%) and

Ontario (19%)• High interest in Yukon as a destination

Organized 29% • Emulators and belongers; follow the leadNeighbor- of othershood • Enjoy outdoor living, getting off the beatenOutdoors pathFolk • Interested in events, attractions, history(ONO’s) • Interested in gambling; some interest in

entertainment• Less frequent travellers who spend less• Like organized holidays, tours , use travel

agents a lot• Older, middle class, less education• Reside almost entirely in U.S.; none in

Canada• Profile fits many current Recreation vehicle

travellers

Segment Market Characteristics

Psychographic Traveller Profile

Source: McKim Baker Lovick BBDO Psychographic segmentation Study, TourismYukon 1992


This is the case with a number of panels suchas Five Finger Rapids and some of the AlaskaHighway commemoration panels.

Children and senior citizens may have troublereading the angled panels and for differentreasons. Children may not be tall enoughwhile seniors may not have the quality of eyesight to read the text properly. These problemscan be overcome through proper attention tosign design, placement, and consideration ofuser needs.

Infrastructure Condition & ImageConsistencyThe records reveal that the majority of signsreceive a yearly inspection except those alongthe Yukon River. A summary of the number ofsigns erected each year since 1982 is providedto the left.

There are seven types of sign panel types cur-rently in use. The three most common signtypes are wood routed and engraved, woodsandblasted and porcelain enamel. Theemphasis on wood routed signs reflects in-house capabilities. Although the problemswith surface finishing on the wood signs hasbeen resolved (cracked and peeling varnish),replacement signs are usually identical to theoriginal sign with little or no updating of mes-sages and sign content.

The signs exhibit large blocks of type, set inupper case (caps) often without adequatespace around the text. In some cases messagelength is excessive and exceeds standard read-ability criteria (i.e. see Flesch Type ReadabilityScale in Appendix 2).

The following series of photographs illustratesa range of typical issues encountered in thereview of the existing sign inventory.

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

02

30

19

19

14

02

05

04

11

02

49

09

12

11

Signs ErectedSince 1982

The Main Audience Needs Include:■ the need to determine what site furnishings are necessary

■ the need to improve warning signage

■ the need to “test market” sign solutions to make sure they meetvisitor needs

■ the need to determine whether the identity of the corridor ismarketable

■ the need to develop a current database that includes informa-tion about the site as well as the sign

■ the need for consistent location monitoring to minimize vandal-ism and keep maintenance cost records

■ Wood—sandblasted and routed or engraved

■ Fiberglass Embedded Cibachrome

■ Porcelain enamel—baked glass finish

■ Cast aluminum and bronze

■ Poly-tech—baked plastic paint finish

■ MDO plywood—hand-painted or silk-screened

■ Aluminum—silk-screened or die cut vinyl

Seven Types of Sign Panels Currently In Use:

2.3.4


Examples of Typical Existing SignIssues

Classic example of four different signs competingfor attention with different:

■ sizes■ materials■ forms■ colors

■ Large sign screens site feature it is interpret-ing

■ Location of sign at top of bank preventseasy reading of text

■ Extent of text crowds sign face

■ Can’t read black text on wood sign■ Can read white text on wood sign■ Both signs display long messages

1

2

3


■ Silk Screened plywood with plexiglass cover■ Message at base of sign is too long and dif-

ficult to read

■ Outhouse perched in front of main view attop of the bank

■ Is there a less obvious location?

■ Unusual elevated deck that appears totallyout of context with its surroundings

5

6

7


■ Signage location in 3 separate areas■ Location and access? ■ No Base treatment, grade change

■ Sign applied directly to historic building itis describing

■ Difficult to read from road■ Single, upper case text in one paragraph

■ Large vertical sign does not fit context whereview is most important feature

8

9

10


The observations can be summarized as fol-lows:

■ Because of their uniformity, the woodrouted signs often provide little continuitywith the surrounding site and story beingtold. However they are simple to fabricateand relatively inexpensive given in-housecapabilities

■ In many cases sign placement disrupts theview or limits common photographicopportunity angles

■ In most instances the standard pull-out isreally a road widening with no clearlydefined entry or exit point because it sim-plifies road maintenance

■ At the new major interpretive sites the signpanels are generally better written with amore balanced view but the texts aregradually getting longer

■ Relevance of some Alaska HighwayAnniversary signage is difficult to appreci-ate without the accompanying brochure;what happens when the brochure is out ofprint?

■ Many of the oldest stained, routed signshave lasted longer than the newer models

■ The elaborate, elevated display decks usedin many of the major sites appear out ofcontext with their surroundings and over-built with little regard to long term mainte-nance implications

■ With the exception of the vertical signs, themajor wayside exhibits are not maintainedin the winter and are unusable

■ Wayside exhibits are currently identifiedwith several different symbols (i.e. binocu-lars, camera) depending on the agencyinvolved yet neither symbol has been test-ed to see which is more effective orwhether differentiation is needed

■ There is little or no co-ordination of siteinfrastructure including benches andgarbage bin placement and no clear direc-tion on their relationship to the sign or site

■ Although a corridor symbol has beenadopted for highway identification forsome time it has not been used in a con-sistent manner or been adopted in othersignage as a unifying element. Also the col-ors used, such as the yellow for theKlondike highway, are unreadable

■ It is not clear what happens when certainpainted sign boards need replacing (i.e.Alaska Highway “NWHS” CommemorativeSigns)

■ Landscaping efforts at most major interpre-tive sites have failed due to lack of careand attention to the timing of installation

Mixed messages- at WatsonLake (left) and JohnsonCrossing (below) signageappears to discourage travel

Carmacks signage invites travellers to take Campbell Highway


Construction/Maintenance EconomicsSign fabrication cost records were ascertainedfrom a review of the files and inter-agencycorrespondence plus personal interviews. Thecharts to the right represent typical sign projectcosts including design, fabrication and installa-tion.

It is difficult to estimate accurately toilet hold-ing tank installation costs. At Five FingerRapids two tanks cost $1,120.00 to install. Hy-ab rentals run $150.00 day plus milage and areused to deliver and install site furnishings.Eduction service costs for toilets haveincreased substantially from $54.50 in 1991 to$74.50 in 1994 plus mileage..

The records indicate the costs to construct 5major interpretive sites in recent years (notincluding sign component) were:

■ Kluane Lake . . . . . . . . . . . $22,742 (private contractor in 1989)

■ Bove Island . . . . . . . . . . . . $17,650 (private contractor in 1990)

■ Fraser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $24,135 (private contractor in 1989)

■ Teslin Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . $16,585 (private contractor in 1990)

■ Haines Rd. (km. 162) . . . . $12,500 (Renewable Resources existing site)

In 1994 Renewable Resources fabricated 7point of interest signs for Tourism at a cost of$7,350.00 which included posts and hardwarebut not erection. The 87 metal mile posts pro-duced for the 50th Anniversary were fabricat-ed by Duncan’s Ltd. at a cost of $106.00 eachand painted by C&TS ($67.50 each).The 15porcelain enamel interpretive panels (approxi-mate size 28”x40”) cost $27,000 to fabricate.$22,000 was spent on consultants to researchand write the text.

The cost of a typical 28”x40” porcelain enamelpanel cost in 1993 broke down as follows:

■ research and writing . $1,000–1,500 (ifdone by a consultant)

■ design . . . . . . . . . . . . . $500–750 (if doneby a consultant)

■ fabrication . . . . . . . . . $2,000–2,500■ metal frame stand . . . $125 (produced by

Renewable Resources)

Installation costs vary significantly dependingon location, number of signs involved andwhether maintenance crews are in the area.

Costs for the 9 new border crossing signs isestimated to be $8,000 each, broken down intoengineering and design ($5,00), fabrication($7,000) and installation ($450).

2.3.5

Rest Area Aluminum 120x45 cm $ 30-50 7-10 years$ 55.05


Estimated Life

Cost

No Camping, Litter barrel 60x60 cm $ 30-50 7-10 years$ 40.40

Mounting Post & Hardware each in sign cost 10-15 years$ 40

2 km. Warning Tab 60x30 cm $ 30-50 7-10 years$ 23.63

Breakaway Sign Posts each in sign cost 10-15 years$ 100

Wood Routed Vertical Sign 51"x84" varies 10 years$ 600-750


Estimated Life

Cost

Sand Blasted Site Identification 16"x132" varies 10 years$ 1,200

Garbage Cans & Base each $ 30-50 25 years$ 1,050

Toilets (regular)�Toilets (handicapped)

each�each

varies 10 years$ 1,800�$ 2,350

Picnic Tables each � 10 years$ 180

Septic Holding Tanks (1,000 g) each varies 25 years$ 1,050

Community & Transportation Services

Renewable Resources

Typical Fabrication & Installation Cost

$22,742$125 $3,875 $1,200(site development cost)


Five different local sign shops were consultedto review private sector capabilities and asso-ciated production costs. All porcelain enamelsigns are manufactured outside the Yukon.Local capabilities vary significantly with vary-ing degrees of work sub-contracted out. Mostlocal shops have silk-screen and hand paintedsign capabilities using wood or metal surfaces.Wood routed and sandblasted signs can beproduced locally by one firm but at a sub-stantially greater cost than RenewableResources. Quotes for typical program signsincluded:

■ 51”x84” wood routed sign . . . $750–1,800■ 16”x132” sand blasted sign . . . $1,750–2,000■ 24”x24” aluminum sign . . . . . . $75–200

(minimum order size)

It is difficult to accurately compare true costsbetween the service provided by the two gov-ernment sign shops without knowing all actu-al overhead costs. Sign costs may also comedown with volume orders.

As it currently stands each operation seems tohave its own production speciality. TheHighways Sign Shop specializes in road ori-ented signs; the Parks Shop in wood routedand sandblasted signs. The private sector ismore involved in silk-screening and handpainted signs and general graphic design.

From a maintenance standpoint there is awide variation in opinion as to sign durability.Some of the oldest vertical stained signs havelasted the longest and weathered well beyondtheir anticipated lifespan. None of the sand-blasted site identification signs have sufferedany damage.

Vandalism is a concern and tends to occur inspurts. Most damage is done by bullet holes. Anumber of porcelain enamel signs have beenvandalized in this manner, highlighting onedisadvantage of this type of sign over the ver-tical wood routed signage panels.

In other cases, identification signs are stolenregularly by tourists. The Yukon River signand some of the more colorfully named sitesalong the highway suffer in this regard.

Once erected, most interpretive signs receivelittle if any direct maintenance. This is mostapparent along the Yukon River. General sitemaintenance includes parking area surfacegrading, garbage removal and toiletcleaning/eduction. This latter cost is increasingsteadily.

In 1990 McSkimming & Associates undertookan inventory of highway reststops includingtheir approximate maintenance costs. Typicalyear-round costs for grading, site maintenanceand litter pick-up appear to average $2,500 ayear.

Who’s Doing What?

Typical vandalism damage—$1,500 replacement

Sign Type Ren. Res C&TS Private Sector

Wood-sandblasted and routedor engraved ✔

Fiberglass Embedded Cibachrome ✔

Porcelain enamel-baked glass finish ✔

Cast aluminumand bronze ✔

Poly-tech-baked plastic paint finish ✔

MDO plywood-hand-paintedor silk-screened ✔ ✔

Aluminum-silk-screenedor die cut vinyl ✔


“The experience of the 50th Anniversary of the Alaska Highwaypoints to the need for more lead time and forethought inresponding to pressures associated with the decade of anniver-saries now upon us.”

McSkimming also found that single vehiclesand truckers accounted for 90% of all rest stopusers during the season with the remaindersplit evenly between local residents and bustours. In 1994 in exchange for maintenance offive campgrounds and $27,000, RenewableResources took over the maintenance of 32rest-stops during the summer peak tourist sea-son.

Program Strengths & WeaknessesThere is no doubt that the program is workingand travellers are stopping to read the signsand visit the new interpretive exhibits. Garbagevolumes and eduction costs are a simple butcrude measure of use and both are increasing.The Yukon program is more advanced thanthat of neighboring jurisdictions and is animportant tool in raising visitor awareness ofYukon natural and cultural history.

The degree of partnership exhibited by thethree main departments involved in this pro-gram provides a real opportunity to maximizedevelopment opportunities while controllingcosts. Program rationalization is needed andjoint use sites make sense whenever practical.One obvious opportunity lies in the ability ofC&TS to construct wayside pull-outs at mini-mal cost during road reconstruction.

Co-operative long range planning is in every-one’s best interests. Both the Parks andHighways sign shops need to know whatdemands will be placed on their services sothey can plan yearly production schedules.Tourism needs to know both the capital andongoing maintenance costs to prepare theirannual budgets. Real opportunities exist toexpand partnerships with the development ofregional tourist sign kiosks at the junction ofkey highways similar to the DempsterHighway initiative. Some road and river corri-dors are naturally suited to the developmentof themes (i.e. Canol, Haines—parkway/heritagetrail, Yukon River—heritage river).

Budgets are becoming increasingly tight andthis will necessitate program rationalization.Some roads such as the Campbell and Canolhighways do not have the traffic loads to justi-fy major site development expenditures at thistime, yet these types of facilities can helpattract visitor traffic.

Recent initiatives such as the DempsterInterpretive Strategy and the Wildlife ViewingProgram illustrate the government recognizesthe value of strategic planning.

Throughout the research phase it was clearthat there are significant program informationgaps. As already alluded to, the files are inade-quate from both a program planning, budget-ing and maintenance management perspective.

2.3.6

An Example of New B.C. Government Regional Orientation Wayside Exhibit nearkey highway junction

The major sign fabrication issues for the Department of Tourism

■ when should which type of sign be used?■ the lack of detailed records on all aspects of sign development■ the absence of any maintenance management and replacement

standards■ the number of signs which are near the end of their useful life■ the lack of a means to measure whether new technologies (i.e.

talking signs, visitor radio) are being used and whether newsymbols (i.e. talking sign) are understood by visitors

■ private versus in-house fabrication; should in-house capabilitybe a major consideration in the development of future sign fab-rication guidelines?

■ how can regional orientation sign kiosks be integrated with theproposals currently under review by C&TS in their proposedcommercial sign policy?


Until recently, there was no one single mapthat showed all the existing interpretation sitesand vehicle pull-outs. There is also a need tooverlay potential interpretive opportunities onthis map to analyze distribution and assist insite rationalization.

Another weakness is the absence of perfor-mance measures and any cost/benefit analysis.In 1994 Saskatchewan Highways commis-sioned a study of their tourist oriented direc-tional signage to see whether it was effective.The study found the benefit/cost ratio of suchsignage could be substantial and far exceededthe cost of the signage erected. This wouldsuggest that it may be possible to determinethe cost/benefit of interpretive signs and way-side exhibits to the travelling public. Thiswould help justify both the capital and main-tenance costs associated with this program.

Summary of Program IssuesThe program issues can be summarized intothose related to strategic planning and pro-gram rationalization, site development, signdesign and ongoing maintenance. TheDepartment of Tourism cannot deliver theprogram alone and must rely on the assistanceof Renewable Resources and Community &Transportation Services.

At first blush, the program is about signs andthe sign message. Traditionally, HeritageBranch has focused on the historical aspectsand limited its interest to the cultural historycomponents. It is now faced with the respon-sibility of delivering a program which hastourist visitation objectives as well as a her-itage conservation/public education focus.

It must also integrate this initiative withRenewable Resources wildlife viewing initia-tives and C&TS highway rest-stops programso all three initiatives work in a seamless andcost effective manner.

Interpretation TrendsA number of Canadian jurisdictions are exam-ining the tourist oriented signage that is cur-rently in place. Ontario has a specific heritagesign plaque program with clear policies andguidelines. Manitoba and Saskatchewan havedeveloped consistent “attraction” signage whileAlberta is just starting on a comprehensivereview of its own program. What is mostimpressive about the Saskatchewan andAlberta initiatives is their willingness to markettest signage ideas.

2.5

Alaska Highway 50th Anniversary Theme Sign

Yukon River Thirty Mile section Canadian Heritage River plaque

“The biggest program deficiency is the lack of attention that hasbeen paid to planning for ongoing maintenance and signreplacement. The absence of program logic and clear perfor-mance measures has impaired planning effectiveness. Criteriaare needed for site selection and program rationalization.”

2.4


Other trends in interpretation practice relevantto this study include:

■ the introduction of talking signs and otherinteractive technology (i.e. CD-ROM,Internet)

■ a move away from static to participatoryexhibits with a focus on self-guidance andeducation

■ increasing public support for, and emphasison, holistic interpretation putting the sub-ject matter into a contemporary perspectiveand blending cultural and natural history

■ the introduction of new and more durablematerials and higher quality computer-generated graphics

■ thematic representation of areas from atourist perspective (i.e. “Kluane Country”)

■ staff resource down-sizing, contracting outand cost recovery

■ growth in agency partnerships with jointprograms and compatible objectives

■ more market centered tourism approach tointerpretation; essential component ofregional tourism planning

■ more use of multi-media options to pre-sent a co-ordinated message in public lit-erature and other media

■ integration of public and private sector sig-nage initiatives including corporate spon-sorship

■ the development of new symbols to indi-cate types of attractions and tourism ser-vices

The Overall Program Issues for the Department of Tourism

■ the Department cannot operate an effective program without theassistance of its major partners C&TS and RenewableResources; a logical, integrated approach is needed

■ the absence of basic design and fabrication standards alongwith guidelines for location frequency, on-site placement of sig-nage and standards for supporting infrastructure

■ the need for a common, user friendly, interdepartmental data-base containing information on construction and maintenancecosts for planning and budgeting

■ the need to establish a program logic that is publicly supported

■ the need for program rationalization including lifespan stan-dards and maintenance guidelines

■ the lack of specific studies on visitor response to signage usedand general site effectiveness

■ the absence of program performance measures and interde-partmental communication at all levels to ensure all the partnerssupport the program

Signage is only one of many interpretive strategies. There is a saturation point


Program FrameworkGiven the diversity of existing Yukon interpre-tive signage, and significant investment ofresources, it makes more sense to build on theprogram elements that exist rather than createan entirely new system. The present programcan be reorganized to provide a simple, logicalstructure with a hierarchy of signage that pro-vides flexibility for expansion and rationaliza-tion.

Renewable Resources, C&TS and Tourismhave distinct programs with different objec-tives and interpretive mandates. The primaryneed is for program co-ordination and siterationalization. Traditionally, interpretation hasbeen viewed as a signage program with sitedevelopment and maintenance issues generallyviewed as secondary considerations.Obviously, site characteristics dictate manysign placement locations but this is only oneconsideration. There are limits to growth and apoint of sign saturation which needs to bedefined. Site and sign, from a program per-spective, also need to be considered in a holis-tic interpretive sense to present a consistentimage and co-ordinated theme.

This framework provides direction on whatthe program parameters should be to providesome order to program delivery. It providesideas on how much interpretive signage isneeded before saturation is reached. It alsosuggests guidelines on where it should beplaced, what the infrastructure requirementsmight be, and how maintenance can be man-aged.

Mission StatementThe mission statement reflects the Departmentof Tourism mandate and should be reflecteddirectly in program delivery. Key conceptsinclude accuracy, balance, diversity and repre-sentativeness.

”To communicate an accurate, balanced and repre-sentative story promoting the Yukon’s diversifiednatural and cultural heritage”

ObjectivesThe program objectives are task specificreflecting the tourism department mandateand emphasizing the inter-agency partnershipfocus. The objectives are an essential ingredientof the program framework because theydescribe what will be undertaken, why and forwhat purpose.

Interpretive Strategy Program Framework

3.0

3.1

3.1.1

3.1.2

”To communicate an accurate, balanced and representative story of the Yukon’sdiversified natural and cultural heritage”

Interpretive Strategy Program Objectives ■ to give Yukon residents and visitors alike, an awareness for, and

appreciation of, the mosaic of natural, cultural and historic fea-tures that comprise the Yukon

■ to provide at suitable locations and appropriate intervals, repre-sentative interpretive messages that inform, provoke publicawareness and stimulate interest in the history, culture and nat-ural heritage of the Yukon

■ to inform and educate residents and Yukon visitors alike aboutthe need to protect and preserve the integrity of Yukon heritageresources

■ to provide a cost effective and complete framework for the co-ordination, site selection, development and maintenance ofinterpretive sites and signs throughout the Yukon

■ to provide a clear, concise policy for the planning, design, andpresentation of interpretive signage portraying the natural her-itage, culture and history of Yukon wide importance

■ to present a consistent public image that reflects the full range ofYukon wide interpretive theme opportunities and their distinctiveregional characteristics in a manner that encourages travellersto explore and visit all areas of the Yukon

■ to orient residents and visitors to points of interest along varioustravel corridors throughout the Yukon


The mandate covers both resident and visitorinformation and awareness needs whileacknowledging both educational and tourismpromotional functions. The objectives areaction oriented. They promote cost effectiveprogram delivery, image and message consis-tency and careful locational planning. Theyshould be measurable in both quantifiable andqualitative terms through such mechanisms asvisitor exit surveys.

Interpretive Sign & SiteDevelopment Strategy

Program LogicThe Interpretive Program provides non-per-sonal services usually in the form of in-placesignage. There will always be numerous anddifferent situations for using interpretive sig-nage along interpretive trails, at overlooks, his-toric sites, day use sites, and road-side pull-offs. As there is a wide variety of unique sub-jects to interpret there are many signageoptions. While there is a need for image con-sistency this does not necessarily require com-plete standardization.

Since a comprehensive program frameworkdoes not currently exist the standardizationoption was considered and rejected for the fol-lowing reasons. First, there did not seem to beany clear net benefit. The Yukon already hasan extensive signage program in place. A cer-tain degree of uniformity of approach alreadyexists. Thus it made more sense to build onwhat already existed. Second, standardizationlimits flexibility and the ability to adapt quicklyto changing needs and new technology. Third,a prescriptive approach does not build alliesand this program requires co-operative part-nerships to work effectively. .For these reasonsit is not appropriate to standardize interpretivesigns for the different areas.

The Strategy and Guidelines have beendesigned to provide accurate interpretiveinformation in a clear, concise manner consis-tent with good communication and graphicdesign principles. Interpretive signage also hasa promotional and educational role thatcomes from increased awareness and accuraterepresentation of the natural, cultural and her-itage features of the Yukon.

Basic Program Principles■ A variety of interpretive mediums is required to stimulate trav-

eller interest and respond to changing resident and visitor edu-cation and information needs

■ Interpretation should identify and respond to seasonal opportu-nities (i.e. wildlife migration)

■ Interpretive signage along highway corridors should, whenevereconomically possible, be visible and accessible throughout theyear

■ Signage should present a consistent image and recognizablethematic structure

■ Planning, development and maintenance of Yukon wide inter-pretive signage needs to be co-ordinated to present a unifiedwhole

■ Partnerships with Yukon First Nations, communities and associa-tions helps to ensure the presentation of an accurate, balancedand representative picture of the Yukon’s natural and culturalheritage

■ Signage should factually inform, stimulate awareness of, andprovoke interest in the natural and cultural heritage of theYukon and not advertise individual commercial enterprises orproducts

■ Official geographic place names should be used and translationof the interpretive message considered in a manner that bothrespects and reflects Yukon First Nations culture and Canada’sofficial bilingualism legislation

■ The location and manner of interpretation used should be com-patible with the site, fostering education and awareness withoutcompromising resource conservation objectives

■ The best interpretation is short and concise with learning directlyrelated to the experience

■ Less is more; not all sites or interpretive opportunities are bestinterpreted through signage

■ Supporting site infrastructure should encourage appropriate vis-itor behavior (i.e. pack-in, pack-out along river corridors)

■ Negative regulatory signage should be avoided with rulesexplained in a positive tone

■ Site features such as landmarks, wildlife viewing and historicsite locations may over-ride ideal spacing distances and shouldtake priority

“The interpretive signage strategy applies to Yukon highwaysand the Yukon River corridor.”

3.2

3.2.1


The program framework has the followingsystem design characteristics:

■ allowance for the establishment of unifyingprogram elements to provide a consistentimage throughout the Yukon through theuse of the Yukon wordmark, programlogos (i.e. wildlife viewing binocular logo)sor other recognizable signature feature toprovide an identity for the whole and alsoeach part

■ allowance for interpretive method varia-tion to meet specific site or program needsincluding corridor and regional identifica-tion without compromising Yukon widesystem recognition

■ recognition that spacing distances can onlybe a general guideline because some fea-tures such as landmarks and wildlife view-ing opportunities are very site specific

■ the system encourages the use of localmaterials and labor and different installa-tion characteristics to meet site specificneeds by allowing for the use of a varietyof unifying program elements includingsign form and shape, colour, material fab-rication choice and message appearance

■ the strategy provides policy guidelines, aframework for decision making and aprocess for inter-agency participation

Order, Hierarchy & FlexibilityBased on the types of signs currently in placefour broad signage categories can be definedfrom a hierarchical perspective. They aredescribed as territorial, regional, communityand site specific reflecting their purpose ratherthan organizational mandate.

Signage development responsibility varies withsign purpose. For example, territorial entry sig-nage is clearly the responsibility of theDepartment of Tourism while community sig-nage is more community driven and depen-dent on their commitment to developmentand maintenance.

In this instance, Tourism and Community &Transportation Services take on an advisorysupport role. This role may be expandeddepending on the outcome of Cabinet’s reviewof highway commercial signage. An optionunder consideration is the development of astandard community entrance kiosk to containbusiness advertising, a community map andother tourism related information.

The site specific category recognizes the needfor flexibility and accommodates the range ofsignage already in place. Interpretive signagetreatment reflects site character and takes intoaccount criteria such as safety, spacing stan-dards, site significance and available financialresources.

3.2.2

Six Sign Themes Are Proposed:■ territorial entrance identification

■ orientation information and warning

■ point of interest, safety and recreation area rest-stops


■ historic use, natural and cultural features


FrequencyHierarchy Level of Control

Purpose Government Agency Responsibility

border crossings HighTerritorial identification & territory wide orientation

Tourism

ecoregion highway junction

MediumRegional highway/river corridor significant feature viewing opportunity regional orientation

Tourism-natural & cultural heritage;�Renewable Resources wildlife viewing & day use recreation

within communities

MediumCommunity community stories Community and/or First Nations sponsored initiatives supported by C&TS (i.e. entrance kiosk)

highways & corridors according to siting and spacing criteria

LowSite Specific identification and interpretation of sites of particular heritage significance and visitor interest

Tourism-natural & cultural heritage;�Renewable Resources-natural history & recreation�Joint-river corridors

Sign Order & Hierarchy


Talking sign technology can also be used topresent other messages such as road condi-tion reports, distances to services etc. in con-junction with the interpretive programming.However, before readily embracing this typeof technology or any new method of signagefabrication or message presentation usabilitystandards should be developed and minimumperformance standards applied. Typical ques-tions to ask include:

■ has the product been market tested toensure it meets Yukon market audienceneeds?

■ will the product last for 8 to 10 years andresult in capital and O&M costeconomies?

■ does the product or service provide“added value” to the traveller and meetprogram objectives?

■ has consultation taken place with nearbylodge owners?

■ do proposed facilities duplicate similarfacilities in the area (i.e. campgrounds,lodges)?





Territorial EntranceSite development criteria for the new territorialborder entrance signage is illustrated to the leftwith a site distribution map below.

Signage on the North Canol and NahanniRange Road may be required at some futuredate. Border signage can be developed on astand alone basis or in conjunction with otherinitiatives but the focus should be on Yukon-wide visitor orientation. Support signageshould describe the Yukon interpretive signsystem visitors are going to see and wouldinclude a brief explanation of such things asthe symbol system. This complements theinformation provided at the various visitorreception centers and the information con-tained on the Yukon roadmap.

Time spent at these sites would be minimalthus the extent of site furnishings will varyaccording to the extent of associated sitedevelopment. Thus considerable variation ispossible as is evident in comparing bordercrossing treatment on the Atlin Road to theAlaska Highway Beaver Creek internationalborder crossing point. The signs themselvesare standardized with no message variation.Size, colour, form, font type and shape areused as unifying elements.

Control barriers, (i.e. boulders, bollards)

Orientation map/kiosk

Garbage container

Trail to sign (for photos)

Welcome to Yukon signage



Expa

nded

Par

king

Picn

ic Ta

ble

Benc

h

Gar

bage

Con

tain

er

Toile

t Fac

ility

Inte

rpre

tive

Supp

ort

Stru

ctur

e

Site

App

roac

hW

arni

ng

Hig

hway

Site

Inte

rpre

tatio

n

Yuko

n O

rient

atio

nM

ap

1000 m

Map

Sign

Features

Layout

3.2.3


Regional OrientationSite development criteria are illustrated to theright. The structure is loosely based on anecoregion theme and the desire for regionaltourism identification. The focus is regionaldifferentiation. The criteria for site distributionand location is predicated on introducing thevisitor to either discrete landform differenceswhich are visually apparent or providing thevisitor with a regional overview at highwaycorridor junction points . This approach firstprovides the opportunity for a new interpre-tive focus that illustrates biodiversity andlandscape ecology. It also provides the flexibil-ity to promote regional corridors such as theSilver Trail using historical, cultural or naturalhistory theme elements. If a regional site islocated at a major specific site, then both ageneral regional message and a site specificstory are told.

Highway junction treatment is particularlyimportant given the limited Yukon wide roadnetwork. This is an opportunity to introducethe use of different information delivery tech-nologies such as “talking signs” which do notnecessarily require site specific development toreach their intended audience because of theirlonger reception range. Talking signs and inter-pretive cassettes may work well in specialcases where direct visitation needs to be dis-couraged. Typical situations might includeavalanche slide zones or native cemeteries.

Toilet facilities

Sheltered interpre-tive display kioskwith “talkingSign” feature

Inter-pretivedisplayfeatures

Garbagecontainer

Yukon orien-tation map

Control barriers, i.e.boulders/bollards

Garbage container

Picnic tables

Expanded, pull-off parking

1 km100m

100m1km

warningsign

Site IDwarningsign


Site

App

roac

hW

arni

ng

Hig

hway

Site

Inte

rpre

tatio

n

Yuko

n O

rient

atio

nM

ap

Identifies attraction, services (i.e. toilets and dumping stations) and other regionalfeatures of possible visitor interest

Map


Sign

Features

Layout

Expa

nded

Par

king

Picn

ic Ta

ble

Benc

h

Gar

bage

Con

tain

er

Toile

t Fac

ility

Inte

rpre

tive

Supp

ort

Stru

ctur

e

3.2.4


CommunityThe sketches to the left illustrate how commu-nities might develop community entrance sig-nage using various program thematic elementssuch as sign form and shape. At the presenttime, C&TS has developed community reststops at one or more entrances to each com-munity. These rest stops are often used bytransient, en route commercial travellers assafety stops. Others stop only long enough fora toilet break because they are not intendingto stop in the community. The Government ofBritish Columbia has developed a communityentrance program to encourage communitiesto spruce up their communities, reduce thenumber of commercial signs and improve vis-itor orientation to community services andattractions. Community response to a similarsort of program in the Yukon was generallyfavorable following public hearings associatedwith a review of the commercial sign regula-tions. Partnership support from governmentmight include technical design, installationassistance or initial capital cost sharing butmaintenance and long term site managementwould rest with the community.

While it is important to acknowledge thisinformation and interpretation opportunitywithin the larger program, it is envisioned thatsuch initiatives would remain largely commu-nity driven and sponsored. Yukon Tourism’srole would be limited and of an advisorynature to communities and C&TS reflectingtheir participation in regional tourism plan-ning rather than interpretive sign program-ming.

Pull off

Community map and orientation

Garbage container

Exhibit structure (optional)


Point of interest, community info,warning sign


Site

App

roac

hW

arni

ng

Hig

hway

Site

Inte

rpre

tatio

n

Yuko

n O

rient

atio

nM

ap

1000 m

Map


Sign

Features

Layout

Expa

nded

Par

king

Picn

ic Ta

ble

Benc

h

Gar

bage

Con

tain

er

Toile

t Fac

ility

Inte

rpre

tive

Supp

ort

Stru

ctur

e

3.2.5


Site Specific - HighwaySpacing distance along highway corridorsreflects criteria such as time/distance travelratios using a standard 100 kilometers speedlimit, site significance and anticipated levels ofvisitor use. Five Finger Rapids would be anexample of a major site; Takhini Crossing aminor site. Both types of sites allow for a widerange of sign types, formats and styles includ-ing talking signs.

A differentiation between major and minorsites has been made. As a general guidelinemajor sites should be spaced at 50-100 kmintervals with minor sites 40-50 km apart.However, as noted previously, historic sites,wildlife viewing opportunities etc. are locationspecific so some latitude in spacing standardsis essential.


Toilet facilities

Garbagecontainer

Viewpoint(interpretivedisplay structure)

Interpretive display

Pull-off

Point ofinterest display

Garbagecontainer


Picnic tables

Expanded pull-off parking

1 km100m

100m1km


Point ofinterest sitewitharrowindicatingwhich sideof the roadit’s on

500m500m


MajorMinor


Expa

nded

Par

king

Picn

ic Ta

ble

Benc

h

Gar

bage

Con

tain

er

Toile

t Fac

ility

Inte

rpre

tive

Supp

ort S

truct

ure

Site

App

roac

hW

arni

ng

Hig

hway

Site

Inte

rpre

tatio

n

Yuko

n O

rient

atio

nM

ap

SITE-SPECIFIC:

MAJOR

MINOR


Major Minor

Map

Signs3.2.6


Site Specific - RiverRiver and backcountry site specific signage ishandled differently than roadside sites as illus-trated to the left. A differentiation betweenmajor and minor sites has been made as wellas between highway and river corridor. Thelatter distinction recognizes the different expe-riential priorities of the backcountry travelleras well as the practical maintenance realities oftrying to service river corridor sites. Elaboratesigns and infrastructure are generally out ofplace and intrusive in a backcountry orwilderness corridor environment.. The level ofsupporting infrastructure should be consistentwith wilderness management principles suchas individual “pack-in, pack-out” responsibili-ties. Other mediums such as guidebooks, mapsand brochures keyed to sites may be moreeffective than signs. The principle here is “lessis more”.

Hootalinqua would be an example of a typicalmajor river site while Stewart Island would bea minor site. Exceptions to this rule wouldinclude road accessible campgrounds on theriver such as Minto Landing and major his-toric sites such as Ft. Selkirk.

3.2.7

Safe and suitablebeaching area

Exhibit display atsome sites

Site ID element100 mmin.


Site

App

roac

hW

arni

ng

Hig

hway

Site

Inte

rpre

tatio

n

Yuko

n O

rient

atio

nM

ap


Map

Sign

Features

Layout

Expa

nded

Par

king

Picn

ic Ta

ble

Benc

h

Gar

bage

Con

tain

er

Toile

t Fac

ility

Inte

rpre

tive

Supp

ort

Stru

ctur

e


Strategy ApplicationSpecific to the proposed design system is therecognition that certain guidelines are criticalto its success. The system needs a commoncontext and structure which still allows forflexibility in the use of different signstyles/material and adaptability to accommo-date signage approaches currently in use.

Subject, approach, overall design, colour com-binations, surface preparation, materials, angleof installation, lighting, maintenance, quality ofconstruction, layout and format, lettering andshoreline will all affect the appearance andsuccess of a particular sign. The site layout,access, signs and support facilities will alsoaffect the success of the installation. Eachdesign should be presented to theInterdepartmental Sign Committee for reviewand approval.

The chart to the right graphically illustrateshow the signage hierarchy can be appliedacross the Yukon.

Various theme concepts can be applied to dif-ferent corridors. For example, the signage pro-gram for the Alaska Highway in 1992 com-memorates construction of the road. TheCanol Road also has a similar history that canbe thematically represented as well as potentialto develop associated story lines describing theoriginal First Nation travel route between RossRiver and Ft. Norman. Theme route opportu-nities are illustrated to the right

Shape, form and colour could be used as uni-fying elements consistent with the patternestablished by the border crossing signage. Thelevel of infrastructure development shouldcorrespond to their interpretive significancewith all infrastructure elements present.

Appendix 3 contains 11 drawings illustratingthe existing sign database in graphic form. Thefirst letter of the drawing number is the high-way code which will be cross-referenced tothe computerized sign inventory.

3.3




Strategy Management PartnershipsIt has been recognized from the outset thatsuccessful program implementation is depen-dent on maintaining and enhancing the cur-rent level of inter-agency co-operation.

First Nations InvolvementYukon First Nations history is an essentialcomponent of the interpretive strategy in orderto present an “accurate, balanced and repre-sentative story of the Yukon’s diversified nat-ural and cultural heritage”. Land ClaimsSettlement Legislation provides for direct FirstNations involvement in all matters related tothe protection of their history and culture.Interpretive signage and site development fallwithin this definition.

To this end Yukon First Nations will:

■ be provided the opportunity to participatedirectly in the planning, theme develop-ment and presentation of interpretiveopportunities within their traditional terri-tories as prescribed in the applicable landclaims settlement legislation

■ be consulted on site redevelopment andsignage replacement where First Nationsinterests have been identified

■ be provided the opportunity to review andapprove message translations where a FirstNations component is included

Program Management StructureThe program management’s structure is basedon co-operative partnership principles andmodeled after the Wildlife Viewing Committee.It gives priority to program objectives and setsout a common process for dealing with allinterpretive signage applications. Roles andresponsibilities are dictated by the type ofapplication, interpretive function and agencymandate. Illustrations on this page and thenext describe the application process in flowchart form for new sign proposals andsign/site rationalization.

The common ingredient to both processes isthe role of the interdepartmental sign commit-tee. The core committee would be made up ofthe three departments currently responsible forsome aspect of program delivery. Membershipwould be increased depending on the type ofproposal before the committee and includeboth the initiating agency and affected inter-ests. Thus an application in Kluane Countryfor example, could be brought forward by theregional tourism association and because ofthe location, involve both Parks Canada andthe Champagne-Aishihik First Nation in thereview committee. (It is assumed the applicantconsults the system guidelines and this inter-pretive strategy in preparing their proposal.)

3.5

3.4

3.4.1

FIRST NATIONSTOURISMINTERDEPARTMENTAL

SIGN COMMITTEE

•location •design •theme

APPLICANT/ PROPONENT

REG. TOURISM ASSOC.

COMMUNITY

PRIVATE CONTRACT

COMMUNITY/ INTEREST GROUP

PRIVATE CONTRACT

REN. RES.

C & TS

ADVISORY •Queen's Printer •Consultants

C & TS SIGN SHOP

REN. RES. SHOP

C & TS/ REN. RES.

TOURISM DATA BASE

SYSTEM GUIDELINES

REVISION/APPROVAL •Location •Design

FABRICATION

C & TS INSTALLATION PERMIT

INSTALLATION

REN. RES./C & TS MAINTENANCE

SYSTEM EVALUATION

MODIFICATIONS

DEPUTY MINISTER APPROVAL

NON Y.T.G.Y.T.G

Proposed System (new signs) Implementation


Thus the Sign Committee can focus on loca-tion, design, theme representation and maintenance issues in their review to arrive ata decision.

Once approved, there are several fabricationoptions including the C&TS and Parks shopsor a private contractor. Prior to erection aninstallation permit is required from theTransportation Maintenance Branch. The sameoptions are available for sign installation.Where maintenance is concerned moreoptions are available including the localmunicipality or an interest group.

The process also includes provision for theapproved application to be added to theTourism database and eventually become partof the subsequent system evaluation process.

The evaluation process can be initiated as aresult of the annual inspections or after a suit-able implementation period to assess programeffectiveness. It could for example, be timed tocoincide with a visitor exit survey but shouldas a minimum occur at the mid point of antic-ipated sign system life (5 years). If major pro-gram adjustments are required the proposedrevisions would be referred to the affectedinterdepartmental Directors prior to submis-sion to the deputy Minister for approval.

Sign/site rationalization follows a slightly dif-ferent process. Heritage Branch of YukonTourism is the lead agency responsible for initi-ating the review. Since it is charged with main-taining the database and has the most interpre-tive signage responsibilities it should initiate theprocess. The first step has already been takenin developing a new computerized database.The next step involves updating and complet-ing the empty database records. The recordshould also include an as-built design sketch.Wildlife viewing sites should also be added tothe data base. Each location should be assessedin the field against the broader, interpretive andwildlife viewing strategies and, where applica-ble, the more specific Dempster Highway Plan.in the future, other specific corridor plans willbe based on this overall strategy.

The interdepartmental sign committee thenreviews the capital and O&M costs associatedwith the rationalization proposal, discussesalternatives and evaluates the level of redun-dancy against agency mandates and operatingstrategies. The committee recommendationsare forwarded to the affected departmentDeputy Minister for approval.

REN. RES.TOURISM DATA BASE

INTERPRETIVE STRATEGYWILDLIFE

VIEWING STRATEGY

EXISTING SIGN/SITE SYSTEM

INVENTORY

GUIDELINE APPLICATION BY

TOURISM

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

INTER DIRECTORS SIGN COMMITTEE

DEPUTY MINISTER LEVEL APPROVAL

Queen's Printer Standards

IMPLEMENTATION

INTERDEPARTMENTAL SIGN COMMITTEE • Review Capital /O&M Costs • Review Against Agency Strategies • Redundancy • Suitable Alternatives

C & TS.

PROPOSED SITES FOR

RATIONALIZATION

Proposed Site/Sign Rationalization

“Interpretive signage within the campgrounds, parks, and his-toric sites or along off-road recreational trails remains theresponsibility of the agency with management responsibility.”


System Development PolicySign use and format should meet the followinggeneral policy guidelines:

FormThe Territory has recently approved a newentrance sign design which will establish anew visual identity for visitors. As a basicdesign component the form or forms suggest-ed by this sign should be used as a commonelement in the development of all new signsalong road and river corridors.

ColourLike form, colour too should be used as arepetitive component to strengthen a unifyingtheme for signage such as in a corridor inter-pretive plan. The final colour palette shouldinclude a neutral background colour and sup-porting accent colour.

Yukon SignatureThe Yukon signature should be used on allsign panels as specified by the Queen’s Printer.In groups of more than one attached signs, thesignature should be displayed on the centrepanel.

Site & Sign RationalizationThe sign site rationalization process isdescribed earlier. The priorities for sign/siterationalization should take into account theresults of the site inspections conducted duringthe summer of 1995 and the application of thenew strategy hierarchy. First priority should begiven to those areas where road constructionis anticipated. Second priority should beplaced on resolving sign/site issues related tothe upcoming anniversaries.

The third priority should be to resolve obvi-ous anomalies such as the signage placementon the Carmacks Roadhouse. Fourth priorityshould be given to the elimination of siteduplication to reduce interdepartmental main-tenance costs. Fifth priority should look at siteconsolidation to reduce upgrade costs to meetstrategy guidelines.

New Site & Sign DevelopmentThe key to the recommended strategy is reach-ing agreement between all affected interests toput all government sponsored interpretive sig-nage proposals through the standard reviewprocess. It is important that this occur rightfrom the beginning so the procedure gainsacceptance quickly and builds credibility.

4.1.1

4.1.2

ColourNeutral background with a common accent colour band or border

Common Sign FormAn identifiable form (borrowed from the 'Welcome to the Yukon' signs)

Identifiable graphic image that makes one immediately aware of the theme of the site

• Historical

• Natural

Support structure of a common material and colour. Scale and form may vary depending on the sign feature

Common Interpretive Message Format

• Text styles

Yukon LogoOn all signs or on the main sign of a grouping of signs.

New Territorial Entrance sign design

Yukon Government Wordmark prominently displayed

Implementation Guidelines 4.0

4.1


Priorities for new sign/site developmentshould focus on regional orientation andhighway junctions, ecoregion identificationand the upcoming anniversaries. Any community signage initiatives shouldcome from the communities themselves fol-lowing completion and adoption of the newcommercial highway signage policy beingdeveloped by C&TS. The community kioskprogram, if approved, would be the logicalstarting point with applications directedthrough the new Sign Committee.

Site Support FacilitiesEach site has its own particular needs. Theplacement, types of materials used, and sitelayout should be consistent with the characterof the site. For example vertical structures areout of place in a tundra setting and need to bescreened accordingly. Depending on the sitecategory a range of supporting facilities isrequired in addition to the basic interpretivesign(s). The following is an overview of possi-ble facilities.

Information KiosksGenerally these are small shelters used in com-bination with interpretive signs or exhibits.They contain panels on basic orientation, andin the case of a regional site, profile the region-al historic, natural and cultural features.

ToiletsToilets should be included for most sites andconstructed to Yukon Parks design standards.Their site placement should be consideredearly in the design process so they are notvisually obtrusive and do not obstruct views.However they should also be easily accessibleto the traveller and take into account the needfor weekly cleaning. The current lime greencolour choice should be reconsidered as it isvisually obtrusive.

Picnic TablesPicnic tables that are located beside parkingareas can encourage visitors to stay longer.Again the characteristics of individual sites willdictate the suitability of their use. Placementshould also consider accessibility, weather andnoise protection from the adjacent road andproximity to garbage cans and parking.Placement should not obstruct other visitorviewing of the interpretive signage.

Garbage ContainersAll road accessible sites should include thestandard Yukon Parks bearproof garbage con-tainer. In some cases placement of the garbagecontainer can be integrated into the design ofother facility elements to reduce visual obtru-siveness without compromising usability.

Information kiosks should be designed to reflect location and blend with site conditions

Toilets should be unobtrusive yet easily accessible

4.1.2.1


Viewing PlatformsThese raised platforms with railings canimprove viewing angles for visitors. They canalso control use of an area by limiting accessto a point. Because they are expensive to con-struct and maintain, they should only be usedwhen other natural site features cannot betaken advantage of.

Brochure DispenserThese outdoor structures are designed to store,protect and disperse interpretive or informa-tion brochures. They require regular mainte-nance to ensure that the brochures are avail-able and are most appropriate in conjunctionwith major sites such as Five Finger Rapidswhere there is a significant interpretive trail.

BenchesLocated close to viewing areas or adjacenttrails, benches provide users with a place torest, sit and enjoy the scenery.

ViewscopesThese interpretive aids help to direct userssight to distant landmarks such as mountainranges or areas where wildlife may be seen ona regular basis. Viewscopes can be as simpleas a tube directed towards a landmark ofinterest.

Signage Design & MaterialsApplicationUntil now, interpretive signs have been con-structed primarily of wood, with a routedmessage. Wood signs can continue to be usedin many instances. They are easy to rout andsandblast, resistant to rot, and produce a rusticambience. Other material including photo-sen-sitive material, porcelain enamel, embeddedimages and metal can be used effectively forinterpretive signage, and may better fit specificthemes than using only wood.

Below are a number of conditions that shouldapply to the signage system.

■ Signs should be complementary to the theme andconcepts being interpreted.This means looking into the use of differentsign types; sandblasted cedar, silk screening onwood and metal, and the use of concrete orrocks for sign supports. The materials usedshould be consistent with theme and setting.

Viewing platforms can improve viewing angles and limit access beyond a certainpoint

Bench installed in conjunction with viewing platform compliments interpretive fea-ture in unobtrusive manner

Viewscopes help direct user’s sight to distant views

4.2


■ Signs should be designed for specific user groupsand the intended season of use.Different types of signs with various standardswill be required for interpretive trails, road-side pull-offs and for specific interpretiveresources.

In winter, signs will be covered with snow andtherefore special designs will be necessary tokeep specific signs functional. A completelyvertical sign might be best for use at interpre-tive sites to be used through winter. For specialwinter interpretation, signs with a protectiveroof might best serve the situation.

■ Signs must be designed to withstand vandalismsuch as gunshots and carving.

No signage is completely resistant to vandal-ism. Wood is better than most metals in areasof hunting, as the bullet usually passesthrough wood where it only bends metal andexposes it to rust and surface deterioration.Metal signs are more resistant to carving,weathering, decay and insect attack and mightbe used where vandalism is expected.

Fixture and placement of the various signs willinfluence vandalism and where possible, theseconsiderations should be taken into accountduring the design and implementation. Inhunting areas, signs should be designed sothat they do not present good targets. A verti-cal sign, specifically ones meant to convey thelaw, makes an ideal target. Care should betaken to place signs in locations where theycannot easily be damaged and remain read-able. Supports might be protected by boulderswith designs angled to make them difficult tohit.

■ Signs should be constructed to prevent damage byanimals.

Materials that have an adverse taste to gnaw-ing animals and birds such as porcupines,squirrels and woodpeckers should not beused. Plywood is a common example.

Often signs are attractive perching areas forbirds, and the sign receives a white washing.As birds usually prefer to perch on a promi-nent and easily accessible perch, these can beprovided away from the sign as directappendages where this activity proves to be aproblem.

Protective roof effectively sheds snow from signage but parking area ploughing leavesberm, making it difficult to get close enough to read

Well designed community sign

Gun-shot damage


Interpretive Sign UseInterpretive specialists have several mediafrom which to choose. Each medium hasinherent qualities that enable it to do a partic-ular job better than any of the others.

A ”yes” answer to any of these questions indi-cates that signs may not be as effective as anaturalist, exhibit, talking sign, audio station,or brochures. On the other hand, if the inter-pretive need can be served by a medium thatis self-paced, photogenic, in place at all times,inexpensive to operate and maintain, a highquality interpretive sign or label should beconsidered. By keeping the objectives, audienceand message in mind, the selection of theappropriate medium will be simplified. A vari-ety of useful reference sources is provided inthe bibliography.

Sign & Site Design Considerations

Sign DesignFirst impressions are important. This is true ofsigns as well as people. Though unrelated tothe message itself, the quality of design andmaintenance of signs may be equated with thequality of the message. Presumably, the signwith the best appearance will have the bestmessage and the greatest expectation ofreward. Hence, the design of the sign is animportant factor in determining whether ornot visitors will read it and accept its message.

Signs should be designed to minimize theirintrusion on the site. The use of local materialsfor the sign and its support can make the signmore aesthetically acceptable and will helppromote the theme of the area. For example,rock can be used in treeless areas, and massiveposts in areas of old-growth timber.

The height of a sign can also be designed to fitthe environment. In open, exposed settings,low profile signs are more appropriate; in aforest setting, elevated signs may be the best.In the Yukon, snow conditions vary signifi-cantly and may have a bearing on site place-ment and height. Many highway pull-outs arestill ploughed so vertical signs will be readable(i.e. Takhini Crossing) while their lower coun-terparts with viewing decks (i.e. Bove Island)are covered by snow or are inaccessiblebecause of a lack of maintenance.

MessageThe label for an object may need only thecommon name to identify it. However, if it isaccompanied by the scientific name, phoneticspelling, and a map illustrating its geographicdistribution or range increases the educationalvalue. It is also more likely to be remembered.

4.2.1

4.2.2

Sign use checklist❏✓ Is a sign the right interpretive solution?

❏✓ Is another pull-out needed or can it be added to an exist-ing site?

❏✓ Is the proposal consistent with the strategy?

❏✓ Has it been reviewed by the sign committee?

❏✓ Are program objectives being met by this medium’sunique qualities?

❏✓ Is personal contact with visitors desirable and economi-cally feasible?

❏✓ Does the message involve an object which can be exhib-ited?

❏✓ Can the message be enhanced with recorded authenticvoices, bird songs, or other sound effects?

❏✓ Will the majority of visitors be near their radios or in sit-uations where they are likely to tune in because they arelooking for particular information?

❏✓ Do you want to provide something for the visitors to takehome with them?


Interpretive messages are more complex.Regardless of length, they must perform anumber of functions. They must gain visitors’attention, hold their interest, provide them withan understanding of the subject, and in somecases evoke a behavioral response. In a shortmessage, these functions must be performed bythe headline, lead paragraph, interior para-graph(s), and closing paragraph. The facts,spelling, grammar, and word choice must beaccurate, concise and appealing to a variety ofreaders. Particular attention should be paid tolanguage translations since words in one lan-guage may not have a direct counterpart.

First Nation involvement is crucial whentranslations are used or the message deals withtheir history and cultural.

Accuracy and ClarityThe text must be accurate. If visitors notice theslightest error, their confidence in the wholemessage will be shaken. Review each phase ofthe sign production process word by word tosee that errors have not been made in typeset-ting or stencil cutting. Putting even minorerrors on public display may detract from theinterpretive message and reflect in a negativemanner on the program’s administration. In aproject representing a substantial investmentof time, energy, and resources, a small scalemodel or mock-up may avoid costly mistakesand needless errors.

Readability Whether or not a visitor reads an interpretivesign depends on what Wilbur Shramm hascalled the “fraction of selection”:

Expectation of RewardFraction of Selection =

Effort Required

The larger the fraction for a particular sign, themore visitors will read it. Hence, the interpre-tive specialist must strive to maximize the frac-tion. This can be done by increasing theexpectation of reward or decreasing the effortrequired.

Writing styles can also affect reader interest. Ifthe style is very formal with unfamiliar words,the readers’ interest and expectation of rewardwill be low. Hence, messages should be writtenin a conversational style (second person),using personal words and personal sentences.

A long block of continuous text is uninvitingand discouraging. Therefore, if you want theaverage traveller to consider reading the mes-sage, it must be short and appear easy to read.Readability can be measured with tests such asthe Flesch Readability Scale or Write Formula.These are included in the appendix 2.

Well designed sign text and graphic combination

Simple clear message which raises visitor interest


Although brief messages are desirable, somesubjects require more text than others. Thepsychologically discouraging effect of seeing along block of text can be minimized by usinggenerous margins, large type, short lines, andshort paragraphs. The advertising industryoften uses a copy to background area ratio of60/40%. Subheadings should also be used to“break up” the text and help carry the storyalong. The reading ease of the text is alsoimproved by using short words and sentences.

A picture is worth a thousand words. This isespecially true for interpretive signs and labels.Pictures carry the message and are strongattention getters. Simple line drawings or dia-grams are best for maximum clarity andunderstanding.

Research studies of typographical factorsaffecting legibility provide guidelines fordecreasing the effort required to read print.Most research is based on standard readingdistances. However, several of the guidelinescan be safely generalized and applied to inter-pretive signs, which often require greaterviewing distances. Both the Design Guidelines forYukon Parks and Parks Canada provide suitableguidelines. Type size should be consistent withYukon target markets. For example, a highproportion of highway travellers are over 45years of age and eyesight deteriorates with age.Thus a larger type size with good colour con-trast is more readable to this user group.

The most legible colour combinations providehigh brightness contrast between letters andbackground. For labels, black letters on a yel-low background are better than red letters ona green background. Also, dark letters on alight background are better than light letterson a dark background. Hence, black on whiteis better than white on black. However, wherea sign is to be used in subdued light, such asin a forest or to be read at night, the light letteron a dark background will be easier to read.

Although no real difference in legibility existsbetween dull and glossy reading surfaces, peo-ple assume that dull surfaces promote legibili-ty, and prefer them to glossy surfaces. By pro-viding signs with dull finishes, you can elimi-nate reflection and glare and meet the expecta-tions of visitors.

The optimum angle of the reading surface toline of sight is 90 degrees. A deviation of as lit-tle as 15 degrees from this optimum can sig-nificantly decrease the efficiency of reading.Hence, interpretive signs should be oriented at90 degrees to the line of sight of the averagevisitor. Steps can be provided at podium-styleinterpretive signs, horizontal display cases, andother interpretive devices where children mayhave trouble viewing them.

Comprehension Level

Good Fair Poor

Layout with totally justified setting 67% 19% 14%

Layout with ragged right setting 38% 22% 40%

Layout with ragged left setting 10% 18% 72%

Text printed in Times Roman 70% 19% 11%

Text printed in Times Roman Bold 30% 20% 50%

Adapted from “Type of Layout” by Glin Wheildon, Strathmoor Press

Comprehension Level

Good Fair Poor

Layout with black headlines 67% 19% 14%

Layout using high chroma


Layout using low chroma


Text printed in black 70% 19% 11%

Low intensity text color

(deep purple, PMS 259) 51% 13% 36%

Medium intensity text color

(French blue, PMS 286) 29% 22% 49%

Muted text color

(olive green, PMS 399) 10% 13% 77%

High intensity text color

(cyan or warm red) 10% 9% 81%








Black text on white 70% 19% 11%

White text on black 0% 12% 88%

How Typographic Factors Affect Sign Legibilityand Reader Comprehension


The Main Sign Maintenance Issues Include:■ safety and public liability associated with the risk of accident

due to poor maintenance resulting in facility disrepair and van-dalism

■ sanitation including toilet eduction and garbage pick-up

■ parking and pull-off grading

■ seasonality and disproportionate frequency of use of some sites

■ aesthetics including the image of Yukon projected by the main-tenance standards adopted

■ costs associated with the above

■ maintenance responsibility

All modern uncluttered type faces or letterstyles such as Helvetica Medium, ScotchRopman, Garamond, or Antique are equallylegible. For maximum legibility, avoidAmerican Typewriter and the very decorativeor highly ornamented styles, such as OldEnglish, particularly in long blocks of text.Some letter styles are most appropriate withhistoric, scientific or artistic messages.

The most legible type form for interpretivesigns is lower case, bold face. Messages writtentotally in capitals or italics are harder to readand should be used only to give specialemphasis to a word, phrase, or sentence.

Site Inspection & Sign MaintenanceIssuesInterpretive sign maintenance breaks downinto two issues, site maintenance and signrepair. Both can be programmed to reflectdesign and construction standards as well aslevels of use. Inspection and maintenancestandards need to reflect program objectives,audience needs and service capabilities. Forexample, developing a maintenance programfor the Yukon River corridor is much moredifficult and costly than along the more acces-sible highway corridors where Highway main-tenance crews pass by sites while undertakingtheir regular duties. Visitor volumes alongrivers are minimal in comparison to roads andthus maintenance frequency can be adjustedaccordingly.

PrinciplesThe following maintenance principles shouldbe incorporated into the maintenance guide-lines adopted for Yukon interpretive signage:

■ the agency responsible for sign and sitedevelopment has the responsibility to setsite and sign maintenance standards inconjunction with the agencies asked totake on the maintenance responsibilities

■ the public agency (or private contractor)responsible for site and sign maintenanceshould be the agency best able to under-take that function in a cost effective man-ner

■ a standard inspection and maintenancerecord should be developed and main-tained for all interpretive signs and sites tofacilitate program evaluation and budget-ing

■ interpretive signs should be inspected atminimum at the beginning and end ofeach visitor season along highway corri-dors and at least once a year on the YukonRiver

4.3

4.3.1

Recommended Type SizesU.S. Park Service Guidelines

Vertical ViewingMeasurement Distance

10 mm 1 Meters13 mm 2 Meters60 mm 9 Meters100 mm 18 Meters

Titles


Sub-titles


Body Text

24 Point Minimum

Captions

18 Point Minimum

“The agency responsible for sign and site development has theresponsibility to fund maintenance.”


Capital & Maintenance CostProjectionsSite development and maintenance cost pro-jections have been developed for each of thefive different sign categories. The chart to theleft shows the estimated basic capital costs fora minimum service package with upgradeoptions for supply and installation. Prices willof course vary with location and whether sitedevelopment work can be co-ordinated withhighway improvement projects. Individualsign installation costs exclusive of site develop-ment may range up to $3,000-further empha-sizing the need for carful construction coordi-nation and scheduling.

It is important that the sign fabricators in theDepartment of Renewable Resources andC&TS sign shops be brought into the feedbackloop so they can see how various materialsand fabrication processes are standing up touse. This helps solve problems such as UVlight weathering and varnish finish problemsexpeditiously. Field maintenance crews andconstruction staff often see simple ways to fixdesign problems based on their experienceand this expertise should not be overlooked.

For planning and budgeting purposes the fol-lowing lifespan standards can be applied:

■ signs 8-10 years■ toilets 5-8 years■ bear proof garbage containers 10 years■ tables and benches 5-8 years

A number of factors affect pull-off size andparking area configuration including:

■ level of anticipated use (i.e. volume)■ site conditions including proximity to fill■ type and combination of uses (i.e. interpre-

tive site and truck safety stop)■ visibility and access safety considerations

As a general guideline the following minimumsize standards would apply:

Minor Site (<400 m2) Major Site (>700 m2)■ 1 truck/tour bus ■ 2 trucks/tour buses

■ 2-3 RV’s ■ 5 RV’s

■ 3 vehicles ■ 5 vehicles

4.4

FAC

ILIT

YST

AN

DA

RD

SM

INIM

UM

SER

VIC

E PA

CK

AG

E

CO

ST M

AG

NIT

UD

EM

INIM

UM

SER

VIC

E PA

CK

AG

E U

PGR

AD

ES

*EX

PAN

DE

D P

AR

KIN

GA

RE

A*P

AVE

EX

ISTI

NG

PA

RK

ING

*HA

RD

SU

RFA

CE

AR

EA

S*B

OLL

AR

D/P

OS

TS/B

OU

LDE

RS

*EX

PAN

DE

D S

IGN

FE

ATU

RE

*PIC

NIC

TAB

LES

*BE

NC

H*G

RAV

EL

TRA

IL*B

EA

RP

RO

OF

GA

RB

AG

E C

ON

TAIN

ER

*TO

ILE

TS*V

IEW

-DE

CK

*BO

AR

DW

ALK

*OB

SE

RVA

TIO

NTO

WE

R*W

OO

D S

TAIR

S

TER

RIT

OR

IAL

SITE

- PU

LLO

FF/P

AR

KIN

G- B

EA

R P

RO

OF

GA

RB

AG

E C

ON

TAIN

ER

- WE

LCO

ME

TO

YU

KO

N S

IGN

FE

ATU

RE

-YU

KO

N O

RIE

NTA

TIO

N M

AP

- 1K

M S

ITE

AP

PR

OA

CH

SIG

N- B

AS

IC S

ITE

DE

VE

LOP

ME

NT

- GR

AVE

LP

ED

ES

TRIA

N C

IRC

ULA

TIO

N

$24,

000.

00-$

28,0

00.0

0

$65/

m2

$25/

m2

$50/

m2

$25/

ea$2

,000

/pan

el$3

00/e

a$5

00/e

a$5

0/m

2$1

,000

REG

ION

AL

SITE

- PU

LLO

FF/P

AR

KIN

G- B

EA

R P

RO

OF

GA

RB

AG

E C

ON

TAIN

ER

- WE

LCO

ME

TO

YU

KO

N S

IGN

FE

ATU

RE

-YU

KO

N O

RIE

NTA

TIO

N M

AP

(may

or m

ay n

ot b

e in

corp

orat

ed in

toth

e di

spla

y ki

osk)

- 1K

M S

ITE

AP

PR

OA

CH

SIG

N (2

)- 1

00m

SIT

EA

PP

RO

AC

HS

IGN

(2)

- BA

SIC

SIT

E D

EV

ELO

PM

EN

T- G

RAV

EL

PE

DE

STR

IAN

CIR

CU

LATI

ON

-TO

ILE

TFA

CIL

ITY

(2)

- PIC

NIC

TA

BLE

(2)

$46,

000.

00-$

50,0

00.0

0

$65/

m2

$25/

m2

$50/

m2

$25/

ea$2

,500

/pan

el$3

00/e

a$5

00/e

a$5

0/m

2$1

,200

$2,0

00-5

,000

$50/

m2

$100

/m$2

5,00

0$7

5/m

CO

MM

UN

ITY

SITE

- PU

LLO

FF/P

AR

KIN

G- B

EA

R P

RO

OF

GA

RB

AG

E C

ON

TAIN

ER

- WE

LCO

ME

TO

YU

KO

N S

IGN

FE

ATU

RE

-YU

KO

N O

RIE

NTA

TIO

N M

AP

- 500

m S

ITE

AP

PR

OA

CH

SIG

N- B

AS

IC S

ITE

DE

VE

LOP

ME

NT

- GR

AVE

LP

ED

ES

TRIA

N C

IRC

ULA

TIO

N

$20,

000.

00-$

24,0

00.0

0

$65/

m2

$25/

m2

$50/

m2

$25/

ea$2

,000

/pan

el$3

00/e

a$5

00/e

a$5

0/m

2$1

,200

MA

JOR

- PU

LLO

FF/P

AR

KIN

G- B

EA

R P

RO

OF

GA

RB

AG

E C

ON

TAIN

ER

- IN

TER

PR

ETI

VE

SIG

N F

EAT

UR

E- 1

KM

SIT

E A

PP

RO

AC

H S

IGN

(2)

- 100

m S

ITE

AP

PR

OA

CH

SIG

N (2

)- B

AS

IC S

ITE

DE

VE

LOP

ME

NT

- GR

AVE

LP

ED

ES

TRIA

N C

IRC

ULA

TIO

N-T

OIL

ET

FAC

ILIT

Y(2

)- P

ICN

IC T

AB

LE (1

)

$33,

000.

00-$

37,0

00.0

0

$65/

m2

$25/

m2

$50/

m2

$25/

ea$2

,500

/pan

el$3

00/e

a$5

00/e

a$5

0/m

2$1

,200

$2,0

00-5

,000

$50/

m2

$100

/m$2

5,00

0$7

5/m

MIN

OR

- PU

LLO

FF/P

AR

KIN

G- B

EA

RP

RO

OF

GA

RB

AG

E C

ON

TAIN

ER

- IN

TER

PR

ETI

VE

SIG

N F

EAT

UR

E- 5

00m

SIT

E A

PP

RO

AC

H S

IGN

(2)

$17,

000.

00-$

21,0

00.0

0

$65/

m2

$25/

m2

$1,5

00/p

anel

$300

/ea

$50/

m2

$1,2

00

YUK

ON

INTE

RPR

ETIV

E SI

GN

AG

EC

API

TAL

CO

STS

Cos

ts re

pres

ent e

stim

ated

pric

ing

for s

uppl

y, a

nd in

stal

latio

n of

eac

h el

emen

t. C

osts

do

not

incl

ude

desi

gn o

f int

erpr

etiv

e di

spla

y fe

atur

es o

r dev

elop

men

t of i

nter

pret

ive

mes

sage

s.


The chart to the right estimates the yearlyanticipated maintenance costs associated witheach site category. Maintenance costs will varysignificantly with level of use and degree ofdevelopment. For example, Five Finger Rapidsand Bove Island are popular stopping pointsand have higher general maintenance require-ments because of the level of use. However,even if physical visitor numbers are compara-ble, operating costs for the Five Finger Rapidssite will be higher because of the more exten-sive development that has taken place.

Lead time is a critical consideration for inter-departmental coordination to work effectively.Lead time considerations affect:

■ sign/site location planning■ materials fabrication purchase■ construction and maintenance scheduling■ capital planning■ volume of anticipated work

From sign conception to fabrication and erec-tion, allowing for the natural budgeting cyclewill take from 6 months to 1 year.

Based on existing sign inventory alone and a10 year replacement schedule, 12 to 15 signswill need to replaced annually. In addition a5% allowance should be included in the bud-get to cover exceptional situations such asvandalism replacement costs.

WE

EK

LYM

ay-S

ept.

BI-W

EE

KLY

Apr

il an

d O

ct.

MO

NTH

LYN

ov.-M

arch

MO

NTH

LYM

ay-S

ept.

BI-M

ON

THLY

Oct

.-Apr

il

AN

NU

ALL

Y

TOTA

L

- EM

PTY

GA

RB

AG

E C

ON

TAIN

ER

S- P

ICK

UP

LITT

ER

- BR

IEF

VIS

UA

LC

HE

CK

OF

SIT

Ean

d R

EP

OR

TD

AM

AG

E

- PU

MP

OU

TTO

ILE

TS*

- CH

EC

K F

OR

VA

ND

ALI

SM

and

RE

PAIR

- CH

EC

K F

OR

GR

AFF

ITI a

nd C

LEA

N- C

LEA

N IN

TER

PR

ETI

VE

DIS

PLA

Y- F

ILL

OU

TM

ON

THLY

MA

INTE

NA

NC

E R

EP

OR

T

- RE

GR

AD

E G

RAV

EL

PU

LLO

FFS

- SP

RIN

G C

LEA

N-U

P- P

RE

-STA

IN F

UR

NIS

HIN

GS

- FA

LLC

HE

CK

-UP

TER

RIT

OR

IAL

SIT

ER

EG

ION

AL

SIT

EC

OM

MU

NIT

YS

ITE

MA

JOR

MIN

OR

$700

.00

$700

.00

$700

.00

$700

.00

$700

.00

$300

.00

$450

.00

$300

.00

$400

.00

$300

.00

$200

.00

$300

.00

$200

.00

$300

.00

$200

.00

$2,0

00.0

0$2

,000

.00

$200

.00

$250

.00

$200

.00

$250

.00

$150

.00

$200

.00

$250

.00

$200

.00

$250

.00

$150

.00

$100

.00

$150

.00

$100

.00

$150

.00

$100

.00

$100

.00

$100

.00

$100

.00

$100

.00

$100

.00

$500

.00

$1,0

00.0

0$5

00.0

0$7

00.0

0$4

00.0

0$2

50.0

0$4

50.0

0$2

50.0

0$4

00.0

0$2

50.0

0$2

00.0

0$1

,000

.00

$500

.00

$450

.00

$200

.00

$160

.00

$400

.00

$200

.00

$300

.00

$100

.00

$2,0

00.0

0$7

,050

.00

$3,2

50.0

0$4

,200

.00

$2,6

50.0

0

SC

HE

DU

LEA

CTI

VIT

YY

EA

RLY

CO

ST

PE

R S

ITE

SP

EC

IFIC

INTE

RP

RE

TIV

E S

ITE

* M

aint

enan

ce s

ched

ule

may

var

y de

pend

ing

on le

vel o

f use

. Tan

k pu

mp-

out c

osts

ave

rage

$10

0/to

ilet t

ank

YUK

ON

INTE

RPR

ETIV

E SI

GN

AG

EO

PER

ATIO

N a

nd M

AIN

TEN

AN

CE

CO

STS


A sample of a suggested maintenance form isincluded . The form can be used in conjunc-tion with the automated database, but isintended more for day to day maintenancerecords. The redesigned form for the databasehas been set-up to allow the inspector toenter the data directly into a laptop computerat the time of the main inspections. The datacan then be downloaded to the main data-base to save time and expense.

Department of TourismDevelopment & RedevelopmentPrioritiesImplementation of the Interpretive StrategyFramework requires prioritization. The follow-ing recommendations provide direction onthe first steps for successful implementation ofthe new strategy. They include:

■ beginning immediately to apply the strate-gy to an assessment of current signrequests and establishing theInterdepartmental Sign Committee toreview the proposals

■ updating the new computerized databaseand records during the 1995 summerinspections to reflect the strategy and newrecord keeping format

■ assigning strategy hierarchy and outliningassociated rationale to all existing signsites

■ prioritizing major regional sites by corri-dor and confirming current deficienciesbased on the strategy

■ preparing graphic standards by category■ working with C&TS to improve warning

sign logo use and consistency■ identifying site rationalization needs and

applying co-operative managementarrangements to planning, program bud-geting and maintenance procedures

■ establishing program performance mea-sures to assess strategy implementationprogress

■ developing a test program to evaluateeffectiveness of new products (i.e. talkingsigns)

Conclusions

Site Location-Site Name

Agency Responsible

Sign No. Sign Category

Inspected by Date

Maintenance Standard

Inspection

Annual

Spring

Fall

3 Years

Problem

Cracks, Scratches, Tears

Ply Separation

Blisters, Rot, Corrosion

Missing

Unstable

Dirty

Recommendation (Remove/Replace, On-site or shop repair)

Site Condition Cleanliness On-site repair Shop repair Vandalised

Parking area

Site cleanliness

Outhouses & Waste Receptacles

Benches, Tables & Other

Decks & Railings

Remarks

Pan

el

Face

(Ove

rlay

& M

essa

ge)

Fini

sh (P

aint

)

Pos

ts

Bra

ces

Har

dwar

e

(photo of sign-site goes here)

Yukon Interpretive Signage maintenance form

4.5


The Department of Tourism mandate forinterpretive signs is defined in the strategy. Itresponds to the primary need for programcoordination and formalizes a process forinter-agency cooperation. The present pro-gram has been re-organized to provide a sim-ple, logical structure with a hierarchy of sig-nage that allows program flexibility.

Accuracy, balance, diversity and representa-tiveness are the key concepts reflected in theprogram logic. A departmental mission state-ment has been prepared which defines theprogram mandate:

“To communicate an accurate, balancedand representative story promoting theYukon’s diversified natural and culturalheritage.”

The strategy provides guidelines for planning,design, capital budgeting and maintenance.Implementation priorities are explained and arationale provided for the standards put for-ward. The biggest program deficiency was thelack of attention to planning for sign replace-ment and on-going maintenance. Criteria arenow provided for site selection and programrationalization. A new computerized recordsystem has been developed to facilitate pro-gram management and annual budgeting.

Based on the existing sign inventory aloneand a 10 year replacement schedule, 12-15signs need to be replaced annually. The mostpressing new challenge is to improve regionalorientation signage at highway junctions.

“A picture is worth a thousand words”

4.6


BibliographyAlberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation. 1992.Signs for Park and Recreation Areas. CommunityRecreation and Sport Branch, Government ofAlberta.

Bufo Incorporated. 1992. Dempster HighwayInterpretation Graphic Image Guidelines. Departmentof Tourism, Government of Yukon.

IMC Consulting Group Inc. 1991. TheEffectiveness of Community Outdoor Mural Projects asTourism Attractions. Tourism IndustryAssociation of Alberta.

Juan de Fuca Environmental Consultants et.al. 1987. Recreation Features Inventory SouthernYukon. Department of Renewable Resources,Government of Yukon.

Manitoba Culture, Heritage & Citizenship.Using Signs to Interpret Community History. How-To Series #8, Historic Resources, Governmentof Manitoba.

McKim Baker Lovick BBDO. 1992.Psychographic Segmentation Study. Department ofTourism, Government of Yukon.

McSkimming & Associates. 1990. Inventory ofHighway Stopping Points. Department ofTourism, Government of Yukon.

Peepre, J.S. et. al. 1988. Recreation FeaturesInventory Northern Yukon. Department ofRenewable Resources, Government of Yukon.

Peepre, J.S. et. al. 1989. Dempster Highway CorridorInterpretive Strategy, Department of Tourism,Government of Yukon.

Renewable Resources. 1976. Design Guidelines forYukon Parks. Department of RenewableResources, Government of Yukon.

Saskatchewan Highways & Transportation.1994 Tourist Oriented Directional Signing Study.Technical Standards & Policy Branch,Department of Highways & Transportation,Government of Saskatchewan.

Trapp, Suzanne, Gross, Michael &Zimmerman, Ron. 1994. Signs, Trails and WaysideExhibits: Connecting People and Places. UW-SPFoundation Press, Stevens Pt. WI.

Tuak Environmental Services et. al. 1990.Strategic Plan for Wildlife Viewing in the Yukon.Department of Tourism, Government ofYukon.

Veverka, John A. 1994. Interpretive MasterPlanning. Falcon Press, Helena Mt.

Yukon Renewable Resources. 1995. Yukon’sWildlife Viewing Guide. Department ofRenewable Resources, Government of Yukon.


Appendix 1 - List of ContactsDepartment of Renewable ResourcesAfan Jones Outdoor Recreation PlannerGary Vantell Site PlannerJack Schick Parklands Interpretive PlannerPeter Frankish Regional SuperintendentHans Van De Werfhorst Workshop forepersonJames Armstrong SignmakerEd Leschart Park Facilities BuilderGraham Baird Wildlife Viewing BiologistJulie Lefebvre Wildlife Viewing Program TechnicianDave Mossop Senior Small Game Biologist

Department of TourismJohn Spicer Director Industry ServicesRobert Clark Development OfficerAkio Saito Development Officer (Dawson)Ed Krahn Museums AdvisorDoug Olynyk Historic Sites CoordinatorLouise Profeit-Leblanc Native Heritage AdvisorRobert Conrad Acting/Historic Sites PlannerGreg Hare Yukon ArchaeologistRuth Gotthardt Yukon ArchaeologistPierre Germain Market Research Officer

Community & Transportation ServicesRobert Magnuson Manager, Maintenance & PlanningMike McArthur Maintenance Service SupervisorBrian Tyhy Maintenance Planning TechnicianEileen Fraser Sign Shop SupervisorAllan Nixon Environmental Coordinator

IndustryDavid Moyle Executive Director TIAYPearle Callaghan Executive Director, First Nation

Tourism Industry Association of Yukon

Joe Muff Total Point Inc.Stephanie Churchhill Inkspirationz GraphicsJohn Russell Northwest Signs & GraphicsMike Lane Terra Firma Art CompanyDuane Fast Artcraft Advertising Ltd.Terry-Lynn Gold Sign ShopMarg Wallace Tundra Graphics & Silkscreen Ltd.

OtherDale Perry Former Interpretive Sign Program

CoordinatorWanda Hook Director, Industry Services, B.C.

Ministry of Small Business & CultureSarah Gaunt Champagne Aishihik First NationBrent Liddle Canadian Park ServicePeter Simlinger Graphic Designer, Vienna , AustriaChris Robinson Planning Advisor, Alberta Historic

Sites & Archives


Flesch Readability Scale1. Count the number of syllables in a 100 word sample (S).

2. Calculate the average number of words per sentence in the sample (W).

3. Calculate R = 206.835 - .846S - 1.015W.

4. Compare value to table:

Score Reading Ease

90-100 very easy

80-90 easy

70-80 fairly easy

60-70 standard

50-60 fairly difficult

30-50 difficult

0-30 very difficult

The Write Formula1. Count a 100 word sample2. Count all one-syllable words except “the”, “is”, “are”,

“was”, and “were”. Count one point for each one-syllable word.

3. Count the number of sentences in the 100-word sample to the nearest period or semicolon and give three points for each sentence.

4. Add together the one-syllable word count and the three points for each sentence to get your grade.If your piece has less than 100 words, multiply your tally to get the equivalent of 100.

Score Reading Ease

85-100 + Children’s Publications75-85 Average American Reader65-75 Above Averge American Reader

* A score of 80 is close to ideal.

Appendix 2 - Readability Formulas

Source: The Art of Readable Writing by Robert Flesch, 1949.

Source: Exhibits for the Small Museum, A Handbook, by Arminta Neal, 1976.


Appendix 3 - Strategy Application Alaska Highway South












Documents

Interpretive Signage Strategy 2005 - Yukon · A typical Wayside Exhibit interprets features or events on a site to develop a theme or a story and differs from a sign by providing