Multi-sensory in the Great Bear Rainforest Bettina van Hoven*

ABSTRACT This article draws on images and stories generated during filming for a documentary about the Great Bear Rainforest in British Columbia, Canada. Specifically, I use material filmed during a trip with Spirit Bear Adventures, a First Nation-operated venture. This journey provides rich material to rethink ‘knowing’ about the Great Bear Rainforest by reflecting on the varied experiences from the ‘sensescapes’ encountered. In this article, I discuss different, multi-sensory experiences and tourist performances in the context of hiking in the Great Bear Rainforest.

Keywords: Multi-sensory experiences, tourism, Great Bear Rainforest, First Nations, qualitative research

ÁGRIP Ferðamennska og fjölþætt skynjun í Great Bear Rainforest Þessi grein byggir á myndum og sögum sem urðu til við töku á heimildamynd um í Great Bear Rainforest í Bresku Kólumbíu í Kanada. Nánar tiltekið er efni sem fest var á filmu í ferð með Spirit Bear Adventures, vistvænni ferðaþjónustu frumbyggja, tekið til greiningar. Ferðalagið býður upp á ríkulegan efnivið til að endurhugsa hvað felst í að „þekkja“ Great Bear Rainforest, með því að velta fyrir sér hinum margvíslegu upplifunum sem fengust með skynjun á vettvangi. Í greininni fjalla ég um hina fjölþættu skynjun og athafnir ferðamanna sem eiga sér stað í gönguferðalagi um Great Bear Rainforest. Lykilorð: Fjölþætt skynjun, ferðamennska, Great Bear Rainforest, frumbyggjar Kanada, eigindlegar rannsóknir

Introduction This article emerged from the production on how the standpoints are practiced with of a video documentary on the Great Bear (and within) the landscape. Rainforest (van Hoven et al. 2009). Using During the production process, the the voices of some of the stakeholders, the forest was visited by myself and a part documentary explores different meanings of the production team carrying three and values assigned to the forest by these video and three photo cameras in order stakeholders. It utilizes a sequence and/or to collect data for the documentary. For combination of spoken word, differently a production team from the Netherlands, paced visuals, and music in order to relay key challenges in gathering data within the an emotional dimension of the issues forest were imposed by the remoteness of portrayed and engage the viewer more by the location, its limited accessibility, and offering these additional sensory experi- possible dangers resulting from venturing ences (e.g. when compared to a written, into grizzly territory without a guide. Since academic article). However, the standpoint the area is located within First Nations’ ter- is portrayed outside the landscape in ques- ritory, it was necessary to negotiate access tion (see also Daugstad 2008). In this article, either by seeking permission from one of the focus is not on such representations but the Band Councils or by participating in

* Faculty of Spatial Sciences, Department of Cultural Geography, PO Box 800, 9700AV Groningen, the Netherlands. Email: [email protected]

Landabréfið 25, 2011 31 activities organized by First Nations for article, I include hyperlinked video clips to a broader public. We chose the latter and provide more insights into the experiences joined the First Nations’ operated ecotour- of the group. ism venture Spirit Bear Adventures as tourists (see Spirit Bear Lodge n.d.). This proved Multi-sensory tourism to be a fortunate choice because it resulted Until recently, the visual dominated tourist in the desired visual material for the docu- experiences (Rojek and Urry 1997), neglect- mentary as well as providing an opportunity ing encounters through the other , to rethink ‘knowing’ about the Great Bear i.e. the olfactory, the auditory, the gustatory Rainforest by reflecting on the rich and and the tactile. Several authors have already varied experiences from the ‘sensescapes’1 pointed at the need to address tourism as a encountered. In this article, I seek to draw corporeal experience (Markwell 2001, Pan out multi-sensory experiences to explore and Ryan 2009). Underlying reasons for this the role and to some extent the interaction neglect include the emergence of mass tour- of all senses in co-constituting experiences ism which markets places and place experi- in the Great Bear Rainforest. In so doing, ences as spectacle (see for example, Ryan et multiple connections are created between al. 2000). This is particularly the case where different places, i.e. the self, the home, the the tourism experience is one from within a forest and perhaps even the world, as well as tour bus and where the visual is priori- different times (or rhythms), i.e. geological tised by providing an environment in which time, time (the presence of First Na- the reach of other senses is reduced “to a tions in the past and now, our own presence) framed, horizontal visionscape” (Larsen as well as non-human time (that of plants 2001, 89). Larsen (2001, 89) refers to the and animals). Tourists hook up with and “protectionist sightseeing bus that func- may become aware of connections within tions as a mobile, transparent ‘iron bubble’ different networks in which the elements [...] which promises the tourist a risk-free, of the forest “recommend themselves […] glancing ‘voyage of voyeurism’”. Indeed, through a variety of characteristics, [draw- Dann and Jacobsen (2003, 20) noted that ing] the person down into their world surely the worst way to take in […] a place is and make for an understanding of their in an air-conditioned tour bus, cut off from concerns and a commitment to their care” the natural street odors in an encapsulated (Power 2005, 48). ‘sanitized, hygienic bubble’ where the only Before discussing multi-sensory expe- activity is visual - that of passively ‘looking riences in the Great Bear Rainforest, I down one’s nose’ at the Other through a provide a framework of reference for in- tinted window. terpreting and situating these experiences. In addition to the way in which tourism I then, briefly, describe the geography of has been perceived, the neglect of the body the Great Bear Rainforest and the organi- is symptomatic of, Clarke (2002, drawing sational context of the trip. Then I invite on Horkheimer and Adorno 1994), notes the reader to embark on a journey to and “civilization, the modern world, [which] into the forest. In the second half of the has slowly and methodically prohibited

1 The senses are “a kind of structuring of space and defining of place” (Rodaway 1994, 4). A number of authors replace the concept landscape, which prioritises the visual, with sensescape, in order to create room for the role of all senses in experiencing and knowing the environment (see references throughout this article).

32 Landabréfið 25, 2011 instinctual behaviour” and “touching, feel- sense, e.g. sound or taste. Feintuch (2004) ing, smelling [is] something unhomely, un- considers how Cape Breton’s fiddle music canny.” As a result, “the [human] body […] helped shape local identity, Gibson and as a vessel of consciousness, [has become] Connell (2007) discuss the role and meaning ontologically sealed off from the world it is of music in tourism in Memphis and, in a conscious of ” (Carolan 2009, 1). When the similar vein, Schofield (2009) explores Man- seal is ‘broken’, opportunities are created chester’s popular music as non-traditional for developing and experiencing a differ- heritage. These examples do not consider ent sense of being in the world. Authors ‘unspecific’ sounds of nature, i.e. the aural like Pan and Ryan (2009, 631) imply this (see Pan and Ryan 2009, 630). McCartney by stating that multisensory tourism is an (2002, 1), however, has argued that enrichment and stipulate that “the more interactive a tourist or traveller is with his environmental sounds hold an unusual place or her surroundings, the more the senses are in our imaginations. They make up the often unnoticed ambiences of our daily lives: they stimulated; that is, when a tourist decides are so much with us and surrounding us that to step out of the ‘comfort zone’, his/ her it takes a special effort to bring them into the senses are liberated; hence the travelling ex- foreground, and pay attention to them.3 perience is enriched”. In their article, which focused on accounts by journalists in This need for a special effort to foreground New Zealand, they differentiate the impact taken-for-granted sound might explain a fo- each of the different senses has on the ex- cus on more readily accessible sound such act nature of the tourism experience. Spe- as music. cifically, they mention olfactory experiences Taste is mostly addressed in the context “to be the most closely tied to , of food tourism but, interestingly, these [smell] links the past to the present to linger studies do not necessarily foreground the to inform the future through recall” (Pan sensory aspects of tourism (see, for exam- and Ryan 2009, 628). In their earlier study, ple, Sims 2009, Lin et al. 2011). A notable Dann and Jacobsen (2003, 4) explore ol- exception is the work by Everett (2008, factory experiences in greater depth. They 338) who explicitly aims to use food tour- quote Tuan, who already claimed in 1977, ism as “a conceptual vehicle with which to that “odours often lend character to places explore issues of multi-sensory experience, making them easier to identify and remem- embodied engagement and non-represent- ber” (Tuan 1977, 11) and remind us of an able knowledge generation”. Interestingly, expression coined by Porteous (1985, 359): she found that engagement with food some- ‘smellscape’2. times occurred in a ‘sanitized bubble’ which There are other studies, too, that high- prevented the engagement of other senses light the role of sensory experiences in to enhance the gustatory experience. In any representing and knowing place. In sensory case, Everett’s study focused on the con- tourism and in other disciplines, the focus sumption of meals. In exploring the Great has however tended to be on one particular Bear Rainforest, gustatory experiences do

2 The concept ‘smellscape’ “suggests that, like visual impressions, smells may be spatially ordered or place related” (Porteous 1985: 359). 3 McGookin et al. (2009) have proposed an interesting way of including urban sound in navigation systems by creating ‘audio bubbles’. For tourists who explore a city by way of ‘serendipitous wandering’, rather than by mapping out routes along tourist highlights using a map, this system helps users to combine their wandering with finding (multisensory) points of interest.

Landabréfið 25, 2011 33 not concern meals but ways of engaging stretching roughly from northern Vancou- more fully with the forest and thus gaining ver Island until the border of Alaska (see deeper knowledge. figure 1). It is the last and largest remain- In the case presented in this article, ing, intact temperate rainforest in the world mobility is an important factor in how (Prescott-Allen 2005), and represents one the forest is experienced, both in terms quarter of the world’s coastal temperate of when and how sensory experiences rainforest (Smith and Sterritt 2011). The are mobilized. Lewis (2000) appropriately Great Bear Rainforest is an exceptionally describes the sensation of movement as a diverse area, both culturally and biologically. ‘sixth sense’. Moving on foot is the main It includes “exceptional marshes, estuaries, mode of mobility for Spirit Bear Adventure hot springs, productive riparian plant asso- tourists. Edensor (2000a, 82) notes “walking ciations, ocean-spray zones, karst habitats, articulates a relationship between pedestrian and forests on recent postglacial volcanic and place, a relationship which is a complex landforms” (Prescott-Allen 2005, 2). The imbrication of the material organization area supports tremendous wildlife diversity and shape of the landscape, its symbolic with grizzly bears, black bears, six million meaning, and the ongoing sensual percep- migratory birds as well as endemic and tion of moving through space […] walking charismatic species, amongst which the also (re)produces and (re)interprets space ‘Raincoast wolves’ and the white Kermode and place”. Further, Edensor (2000a, 92), bear, and a multitude of unique botanical drawing on Wainwright (1969, 33), claims species (Smith and Sterritt 2011). In addi- that “there are certain rural spaces in which tion, the Great Bear Rainforest is home to walking is not fruitful”, and Wainwright’s over 2,500 salmon runs (i.e. salmon popula- quote specifies such spaces as forests for be- tions that return to a specific river over a ing confined, lacking living creatures and vi- particular time period) (Temple 2005). It sion ahead. The forest provides “significant, is important to note that the rich diversity contested and ambivalent affordances [that] in the Great Bear Rainforest includes rich constrain behaviour along certain possibili- human cultures as well as the area has been ties, connected to bodily capacities and lim- populated by 29 First Nations groups for its of the human organism” (Macnaghten over 10.000 years (Prescott-Allen 2005). and Urry 2000, 169). Yet, the case in this The abundance of ancient trees such article suggests what Crouch advocates that as cedar and spruce, growing to about precisely through walking (in its various 60 metres tall, makes B.C.’s rainforests an forms), spatialities are “developed in practice, important economic resource. However, ontologically, discursively made sense and timber harvesting has been done with little felt in an embodied way” (Crouch 2001, concern for ecological diversity, adopting 63, original emphasis). Through walking in clear cutting and retention logging as key the forest, the boundaries between “people, method. In 1997, environmentalists, First plants, animals and places [are not thought Nations and forest industry clashed in the of as] static, but instead as relational, ac- Great Bear Rainforest over destructive tive, dynamic, ongoing and fluid” (Waitt et logging practices (see CBC 1997). When al. 2009, 44). environmentalists targeted the international market, the forest industry saw their sales the Great Bear Rainforest figures dwindling and agreed to begin ne- The Great Bear Rainforest is situated along gotiations over the future management and the coast of British Columbia, Canada, protection of the area. Negotiations over

34 Landabréfið 25, 2011 Great Bear Rainforest

N

Dixon EntrancEntrancee

Haida Gwaii Coast Mountain

Hecate Str

ouo u

. Klemtu s BRITISH COLUMBIA

QueQuQueenueeeeen CharlotteCharlotCChhaharrllolototttte SoundSound

PACIFIC OCEAOCEANN

LEGEND St r. of Georgi Great Bear Rainforest VVANCOUVERANCOUVER City ISLAND a Vancouancouveverr Highway River International border State border

0 100 200 300 km © CRIG 2011 539

Figure 1 Location of the Great Bear Rainforest and Klemtu (source: CRIG 2011). what should happen with the Great Bear ists, First Nations and various other Rainforest in terms of managing economy, stakeholders (among whom the tourism ecology and culture between the provincial industry) took over ten years4. and national government, environmental-

4 See also Smith and Sterritt (2011), Clapp (2004), and Hoberg et al. (2004) for more details on the process of negotiating agreements regarding the management of the Great Bear Rainforest. For discussion of issues pertaining to ecosystem based management see, for example, Howlett et al. (2009) or Price et al. (2009). Rossiter’s (2004) article additionally provides a useful historical geographical background on land and resource claims in the area and ‘geographical imaginations’ produced by environmental NGOs. These articles are important, too, because they also address the role of as a part of the Great Bear Rainforest’s wilderness. Last but not least, Dempsey (2010) examines the role of non- human actors, specifically grizzlies in (unevenly) shaping the agreements regarding the management and protection of the Great Bear Rainforest. It is important to note that, at the time of writing, there were still conflicts that remain unsettled and began to emerge. In addition to uncertainties about the exact implementation of EBM, hunting, aquaculture and ongoing logging, a key issue was the planned oil pipeline by Enbridge from Alberta through the Great Bear Rainforest with oil tankers travelling through and stopping in forest.

Landabréfið 25, 2011 35 Tourism with Spirit Bear by plane from Vancouver via Bella Bella to Adventures Klemtu, or by ferry from Port Hardy where The experiences discussed in this article Klemtu is a stop on the way to Prince Ru- were obtained during a four day trip facili- pert. To undertake this trip from the Neth- tated by a First Nations-operated ecotour- erlands costs approximately 4500 euros per ism venture called Spirit Bear Adventures. person (transportation and stay in Klemtu). Spirit Bear Adventures operates out of the It is therefore not a trip many people can or village Klemtu (see figure 2). Originally would consider. Nevertheless, Doug (Spirit conceived to provide walking tours for Bear Adventures guide) describes visitors people anchoring at Klemtu’s harbour in as “middle-class, outdoorsy people”. He 1996, Spirit Bear Adventures gradually estimates that about 60-70 people join the began to incorporate cultural and wildlife organized boat tours per year, and that 75 to tours by boat. In particular, the attention 80 percent come from Europe. Our group for the (white) Kermode bear (spirit bear) consisted of, apart from myself, two re- by the global media since the mid-1990s, search assistants (Annemieke and Annalies), accelerated developments in tourism. By my husband Olaf, our two-and-a-half-year- now, most people that come to Klemtu, old daughter Caitlin, Margot, a 67-year old come to see bears. The company does em- woman from Vancouver Island and Lucas, a phasize bear encounters in both image and journalist in his 30s from Vancouver. From word but it sees a wildlife experience as an Klemtu, there were two guides, Doug and integral part of a cultural experience and Vern, who accompanied the group, as well even a personal-spiritual journey. as Murray, who operated the boat. It must be noted that Klemtu is very Markwell (2001) argued that even though remote; it cannot be accessed by car. A few the advent of new technologies has enabled possible ways of accessing the village are tourists to access more and more diverse

Figure 2 Klemtu. See fig. 1 for the location of the village. (Photo: Bettina van Hoven)

36 Landabréfið 25, 2011 natural places, and even though promotion- sometimes more, sometimes less suited al material promises wildlife encounters, the for humans. These trails included walking tourism industry often provides a structured on uprooted plains, climbing over or under and controlled form of tourism encounter fallen trees and across rocks and boulders, with nature (e.g. through paths, boardwalks, moving through bear dens, shifting through boats etc). In so doing, the tourist is often shrubs (see figure 3) or overhanging, mossy separated from nature/wildlife. The Great branches, and wading and sliding through Bear Rainforest is, I would argue, what mud and rivers5. Edensor calls a heterogeneous space, one In terms of recording data during and that allows for or even demands unbounded about these journeys, several sources were performance, one that hosts “more vivid used. Visual data was captured and recorded and varied sensual experience” and in which with three video cameras and three photo “haphazard features and events disorder cameras that were used interchangeably the tourist gaze” (Edensor 2000b, 340). by three researchers as well as one of The Great Bear Rainforest does not ac- the Klemtu guides. In addition, the audio commodate an experience mediated from tracks on the video recordings composed within “an encapsulated sanitized, hygienic data (e.g. people narrating what they saw bubble” (Dann and Jacobsen 2003, 20) as well as conversations between group because there are no roads on which to be members about their experiences as they transported by bus. In this place, the body were happening). Research diaries were touches and is touched – involuntarily and kept that comprised written notes by the voluntarily – by natural elements in various researchers as well as some video recordings sensory ways (Abram (1996, 68) calls this served as such. The non-academic visitors “reciprocity of the sensuous”). The trip by were interviewed about their experiences, Spirit Bear Adventures was organized in a observations and meanings they ascribed way that encouraged such experiences. The to these during their stay at the Great Bear daily were not planned precisely. Rainforest after the walks. During the The guides usually suggested a few pos- reviewing of all visual data when prepar- sible locations that were good for wildlife ing the editing stage for the documentary, viewing or important cultural sites, and the , observations and highlights were group then expressed their preferences. shared in discussing data. These discussions Once arrived at the location, the exact route were taken into account in the analysis was determined by the conditions imposed of all available data by the author of this by the weather and the forest. Although article. This article is therefore to some the guides would aim for locations they degree built on auto-ethnographic data. knew bears spent time, there were no pre- In experiencing the Great Bear Rainforest established routes, boardwalks or viewing and reflecting on these experiences, I must platforms as, for example, in the rainforests “acknowledge how [my] life histor[y], ... on Vancouver Island (Pacific Rim). Instead, age, gender and the privileged position of the group hiked along bear-made trails, [my] middle-class, academic background [...]

5 The trip incurred many possible risks and dangers. For that reason, tourists were required to sign a ‘Waiver of all claims, release from liability and assumption of risks’ form (the list of risks includes: (steep and slippery terrain, rough and dangerous water, wild animals, exposure to natural elements, food and water poisoning, and even the and other participants, all of which may cause injury or death).

Landabréfið 25, 2011 37 Figure 3 Hiking through the Great Bear Rainforest. (Photo: Bettina van Hoven) shape [my] engagement with this project” obtained a good sense of its spaciousness, (Waitt and Lane 2007, 160). I view this level its extent and the amount of forest. We also of engagement as an asset without which saw the amount of forest logged (clear cut) it would have been difficult, if not impos- and the extent of the cleared site. In many sible, to discuss the embodied experiences areas in British Columbia, clear cuts are presented in this article. ‘masked’ by a green, forested strip along the In what follows, I begin by describing our roads from which they might be viewed and approach to the Great Bear Rainforest by hence, for visitors like us, this was one of plane and boat because these allow for dif- the rare occasions to witness a part of the ferent “visual registers” (Franklin and Crang conflict that took place before we visited. 2001, 13). I then want to briefly explore Accessing the Great Bear Rainforest by air multi-sensory encounters with the forest provided a global connection – it illustrated and its elements. Although moving through what we, the visitors, may know as ‘green the Great Bear Rainforest always engaged lung’ from the media, reminded us of the multiple senses at any point in time, and I need for sizeable forests in light of climate sometimes point out these connections, I change and alerted us to the rapid decrease largely discuss each separately. of old-growth forests around the world. During our four-day trip, all of our Approaching the forest movements were preceded by boat trips. When we first approached the Great Bear A different picture emerged as we viewed Rainforest, we did so by plane (see video the steep mountains rising from and disap- clip, van Hoven 2011a).6 In so doing, we pearing into the sea, a landscape intercepted

6 The video clip bears witness to some of the non-human actors that make up the landscape. Some spoken responses are audible, e.g. the 2,5 year-old traveler singing or narrating in Dutch a bear viewing (‘tourist performance’).

38 Landabréfið 25, 2011 by wide, flat marshlands (see figure 4). Ap- the bears again (Doug, personal conversa- proaching our landing sites in this way, we tion). Much less visually attractive perhaps connected with geological time, the snow- but an important ingredient to the lush and capped mountains being the most dominant tall growth of the trees is the salmon. It is reminder of geomorphologic processes dragged into the forest and left half eaten during the last ice age as well as the area’s by bears, and further consumed by other mythical past (e.g. the Tsimshian legend of animals. Eventually salmon nutrients are Moksgm’ol, the Spirit Bear). absorbed by plants and can be found in Our mobility was significantly impacted the highest tips of the highest trees. These by the forces of nature which was the main provide shelter and shade for fellow forest variable in determining when and where dwellers and benefit the salmon that needs our routes started and stopped, what route cool rivers to spawn (see e.g. Reimchen 2001 we took, how we moved along it and how and Reimchen n.d.). this felt (see also Cresswell, 2010). As we stepped off the boat, wherever tides al- Bear viewing lowed us to stop, we were increasingly Before we advanced into the forest, the engaged by the forest and its elements. It guides provided a safety briefing as well as is important to point out that the landscape brief reports on what might be expected on we see and experience today is made, to a the basis of a recent trip or recent wildlife large extent, by non-human-actors. Two key viewings. These ‘reports’ were very influ- actors are bears and fish. Grizzlies dig up ential in how we saw the forest and inter- roots for their food supply and in doing so, preted the wildlife we encountered. Our air the soil. This then provides better liv- imagination of what we might encounter ing conditions for both animals and plants was additionally fuelled by our “virtual inhabiting this soil and eventually benefits capital” (Curtin 2006, 311), i.e. previous

Figure 4 Khutze Inlet, Great Bear Rainforest. (Photo: Bettina van Hoven)

Landabréfið 25, 2011 39 expectations, experiences and desires, viewing a grizzly) and sometimes mysti- or fears about wildlife based on “a large cal (when viewing the Spirit Bear) whilst stock of knowledge and images assembled Lucas’ experienced a changing emotional from sources such as television, film and response from fear to excitement and even advertising” (Curtin 2006, 311, see also comfort. Beardsworth and Bryman 2011). Margot, Margot (narrating the grizzly encoun- for example, had an imagination of bears ter): as wild and unpredictable. She said during The one [day] that was the most thrilling, however, an interview: was ... we were sitting on a log by the water waiting for the bear and we were radioed from ... our boat I don’t want to be overly romantic about it, but they are driver, telling us that there was a bear heading in our one of the wildest animals and the most unpredictable direction. He said it was a grizzly and it was heading animals and they’re obviously very wise and they don’t directly towards us. I must admit I was quite … like intruders and you don’t quite know what mood excited and nervous at that point. And sure enough they’re in, how well fed they are, how irritable they the bear came through the bush and looked at us [...] are, so you’re not quite sure ever what they’re going and started heading towards us and that’s when our to do. So walking on a trail was … well not anxiety leader, Doug, asked us to step forward and asked us ridden, there was a sense of heightened awareness to move away from the edge of the water and at that [...] the word grizzly just has a connotation of point the bear [...] reared up upon its hind legs, which built- in fear. was a scary site, and then very quickly turned and Lucas, too, had some hesitations about fled into the bush again. grizzly viewing on foot. He recalls during Margot (narrating the Spirit Bear en- an interview: counter): Well, to be honest I was probably more scared the day ...I could see the entire white, a kind of dirty blond, before the tour started because when I came on this bear as he moved across our field of vision until he tour originally I didn’t realise that we were going to be disappeared on the other side. And so it was a brief walking on the same land that the bears were walking and almost mystical feel to it, it was so short but ... on, since I’ve been on a previous bear viewing trip where very real. And I don’t know if that describes my all the bear viewing was done from the boat. So when feelings or not but it was, it was very exciting in a ... I found out we’re going to be on land I thought, wow mystical, spiritual way. It sounds corny I know but… this could be challenging, [...] this could be scary. [doesn’t finish her sentence]. During the walks, expectations sometimes Lucas: persisted, or changed. For example, when When you’re actually out there with the bears here, the Doug concluded his safety briefing with a coastal bears it’s, I find, not all that scary especially comment on having seen a very large grizzly if you’re with an experienced guide, who knows what during his last visit, ‘very large’ was variably he’s doing. And the bears themselves are pretty mellow. interpreted as fearsome or exciting, as the I mean if you’re not bothering them then they’re not video-recorded group members’ comments going to bother you, as far as I can tell from my limited revealed. The anticipation of bear viewing experience [...] I have to say today, seeing eleven bears in rapid succession that doesn’t happen every day of triggered bodily responses. Regardless of the week. And especially to be able to be close to the cause (fear or excitement), excess per- the bears in their natural environment that was ... spiration was experienced by most of the exciting and we saw all kinds of different action group members. today, including a large black bear that was very bad During the interviews, Margot and Lucas at catching fish and that provided some comic relief. recalled their bear encounters. For Margot So it was, it was all good. this was sometimes ambiguous (when

40 Landabréfið 25, 2011 Throughout the hike, the group stayed agreement about this performance as being alert, as bears announced their presence appropriate, at least for some visitors in our through visual, audible and olfactory group, which may be attributed to a worry traces such as food, hairs, scratches, or that noise may alert grizzlies to our presence faeces. These traces were pointed out by or discourage wildlife from approaching. the guide (figure 5 and video clip on ‘bear However, Caitlin, the two-and-a-half-year- viewing’, van Hoven 2011b) who then es- old traveller, was quite oblivious to this kind timated when the particular bear that had of cautious or appreciative performance, left the trace might be encountered by us. she had not been ‘educated’ to adapt her When such an encounter occurred, often behaviour and neither was she aware of by binoculars or a camera first, most group “external surveillance [which] may restrict members communicated with the animal(s). the scope of performances and help to un- The video data provide several examples of derscore communal conventions about ‘ap- talk to bears, mostly in the form of whis- propriate’ ways of being a tourist” (Edensor pering, which included comments on their 2001, 72). Instead, Caitlin sang to the bears appearance and movement, and requests or urged the rest of the group (loudly) to to approach the group (Annemieke) or to explain what we were seeing. move away from it (Margot). Undoubtedly, bear viewing comprised a The data suggest, I would argue, that significant part of the entire travel experi- most group members ‘performed’ in a way ence. Curtin (2006, 303, drawing on van that was appropriate in this setting: with a Manen 1990), suggested, these experiences sense of awe, or as Edensor described in the “can never be fully grasped in their imme- case of the Taj Mahal, “solitudinous gazing” diacy. Instead, they gather significance as (2001, 72). There seemed to be an unspoken we reflect on and give memory to them”. In

Figure 5 Interpretation of traces by Spirit Bear Adventure’s guide Doug Neasloss. (Photo: Bettina van Hoven)

Landabréfið 25, 2011 41 that context then, the group was important experiencing the sounds in the field), and in ‘placing’ the bear viewing experience as they became a powerful reminder of the the group offered opportunities to share presence of the aural (Pan and Ryan 2009). experiences and thus “consolidate[d] the At the time of hiking through the forest experience and transform[ed] it into a the role of the ever-present soundtrack of cherished memory” (Curtin 2006, 305). For nature was ‘drowned’ due to the presence most, if not all visitors, bear viewing can of more immediate sensory input, or sim- be considered a “wild-animal-triggered peak ply the strain of movement. Nevertheless, experience” (DeMares and Krycka 1998, the role of sound was one that augmented xx)7. Having said this, I would emphasize emotions of joy as sound was ‘attached’ to that this encompassed all of the following: the presence of wildlife and thus served as approaching the forest, imagining the view- an announcement of experiences to come. ing of the animal and all the multi-sensory In the forest, as McCartney (2002, 1) also impressions and stops along the way. It pointed out, “environmental sounds form is also important to note that visitors are a powerful conduit to memory. Hearing a embedded in the wild animal’s territory and particular sound or ambience can launch conduct the viewing as a part of the same a chain of related memories, whether ex- network of beings whilst hiking (and stop- perienced consciously or working subcon- ping) in the forest. Ballantyne et al. (2010) sciously, that reconnects us with particular also consider this broader context, at least to places and times in our lives”. However, for some extent, by taking into account sensory some the aural was cause for concern or impressions, emotional affinity, reflective re- even fear as in the case of a noisy waterfall, sponse and behavioural response in a study because our approach might not be audible on marine-based wildlife in Scotland. by bears. In this case, sound combined with imagination and triggered a bodily response Multisensory experiences (goose bumps, increased heart beat, sweat- ing). For example, Margot described during Sound the interview: In the case of the Great Bear Rainforest, sounds concerned both the unnoticed and And then we would walk up a trail which was usually ever-present ones and, less often, the ones a bear trail on the edge of the water, which is a bit announcing ‘tourism highlights’ such as nerve wrecking because walking along the water means a bear’s roar. The fact that many sounds that the sound of your hiking is ... drowned out by were an almost taken-for-granted part the water sounds and you might surprise the bear. So I’d always been told not to do that, but Doug knows of the tourism experience became clear what he’s doing. So then we would get to a location only when analysis of video data took where we would wait because it was a bear feeding place which explicitly aimed at pulling the location and there were salmon in the water and we different sensory experiences apart. On would sit and wait for the bear to come, come to us if video (see video clip, van Hoven 2011c), they weren’t there, if they weren’t there already. the sound of wind on a speeding boat, the sound of a waterfall, seagulls and buzzing Touch flies, and the sound of people whispering, As noted above, sound such as a grizzly’s shouting or cursing as a response to these roar, was met by an involuntary bodily was foregrounded (when compared to reaction; it was felt as well as heard as the

7 Even though bear encounters are different from swimming with whales (DeMares and Krycka 1998) or dolphins (Curtin 2006) because of greater perceived (and possibly actual) danger.

42 Landabréfið 25, 2011 body shivered, or the skin produced goose became a part of the forest experience. The bumps. Indeed, Obrador-Pons pointed out use of touch in experiencing the Great Bear that the haptic system is not limited to skin Rainforest therefore “enhance[d] a sense of contact but it consists of “the entire sen- immersion and presence, of intimacy and sory motor and cognitive components of proximity. Haptic modalities of perception the body– system” and that “the haptic reveal[ed] our withness with things” (Obra- system plays a central role in the constitu- dor-Pons 2007, 136, emphasis added), and tion of feelings and habitual perceptions as imbued a sense of enchantment. well as in the formation of subjectivity and intersubjectivity” (Obrador-Pons 2007, 135 Smell drawing on Paterson 2005; see also Oakley As implied above, smell is one of the et al. 2000). sensory experiences that has received rela- In the case of the Great Bear Rainforest, tively more attention in tourism studies as all experiences were framed by the haptic it is believed, I reiterate, to “be the most for, at all times, wind and weather touched closely tied to memory, [smell] links the our skin thus warming, cooling, moistening past to the present to linger to inform the or stroking us. Touch provided connections future through recall” (Dann and Jacob- with the forest as shrubs, ferns, mosses, or sen 2003, 628). In their discussion, Dann spider webs attached and detached as we and Jacobsen made an interesting claim passed. In addition, we were encouraged by relevant to this paper. They noted that our guide to reach out and explore forest smells are most often described in terms elements such as tree bark, trace hairs, ber- of the thing they originate from and that ries, different leaves or even dying salmon the quality of a place is often expressed which had come to spawn and slowly in the way it smells, i.e. “nice places smell disintegrated in the rivers. In a study on good, nasty places smell bad” (Dann and walks with people with visual impairments, Jacobsen 2003, 5). However, in the case of MacPherson (2009) described how one of the Great Bear Rainforest, I would argue her visually impaired respondents feels in- that this differentiation cannot be made as hibited to use touch in order to ‘see’ because readily. Without a doubt, the predominant it makes her look ‘too blind’. In contrast, odour, once travelling on land, was that in our case touch enhanced our seeing, gave of “bear poop” (to quote Annemieke). it more depth and provided nuances to our In fact, this smell was so dominant that it view of the forest. Rather than just seeing was necessary to come right up to another lots of different sizes and shapes of leaves, object with a scent, say a berry or flower, we were able to name them and describe to escape from it. In addition, the “bear them in a personalized way, thus enhancing poop” was so strong that it could virtually their meaning (see video clip, van Hoven be tasted (this sentiment is also visible in 2011d). the video link provided where Annemieke, Touch also emphasized the experiences when asked to describe the smell, ‘tastes’ of the forest as one shared between trav- the air before exclaiming “berepoep!” (bear ellers because we helped each other along poop; see video clip, van Hoven 2011e). across mossy logs, algae covered rocks, It is an odour that, in our ordinary lives, against the flow of a river or when stuck would not normally fall into the category in the mud, or as we shared hugs upon suc- ‘good’ but it still augmented the overall cessful hiking or wildlife viewing. This is im- experience in the forest and helped it be portant because in this way, the group also conceived of as ‘nice place’. It is likely that

Landabréfið 25, 2011 43 this reconfiguration of olfactory impression encountered power relations. In First Na- from bad to good was possible due to the tions culture, some knowledge is owned unique situation in which it was obtained, by families and they need to give formal namely whilst hiking through bear territory permission to the guides so they may share and in the close vicinity of large predators. this knowledge. As a result, we were not In terms of providing a link between past, shown plants and did not hear stories that present and future, it is probable that this were not sanctioned by elders to be known is the odour that will evoke memories of by outsiders. Nevertheless, this link to a hu- the Great Bear Rainforest. man presence in the Great Bear Rainforest through tasting was significant as a way of Taste integrating humans into the wilderness we With the exception of ‘tasting bear poop’ experienced. Last but not least, taste could through smell, taste was a choice experi- also be taken home; we could drink tea ence. Some experienced it more than oth- made from herbs that grow in the forest ers. It was also a guided experience since it or eat chum salmon. Taste thus extended needed to be pointed out to us by the guide our experiences and encouraged us to revisit which plants (or part thereof) were edible the forest in our imagination at different and when. The video data shows some times and in different ways. hesitation by group members to put plant parts (e.g. berries, roots) in their mouths Mobility (see video clip, van Hoven 2011f). I can only All of the descriptions above of experienc- speculate that a reason may be the detach- ing the forest through the senses are ways ment of many humans from the origin of of ‘seeing’ the forest, as in a kind of “vision their modern processed foods. However, that happens through bodily immersion upon consuming the forest product, faces rather than detached observation” (Lund reveal pleasant surprise. The interrelation and Benediktsson 2010, 6). As Michael between an involuntary bodily reaction (2000, drawing on Ingold 1993) pointed (e.g. raised adrenalin due to the suspense out, “depending on the kind of activity in caused by eating unknown forest prod- which we are engaged, we will be attuned ucts, followed by the emotion of relief or to picking up a particular kind of information, achievement) and the actual flavour which leading to the perception of a particular unfolded on one’s taste buds likely consoli- affordance” (Michael 2000, 111, emphasis dates memories of the forest carried into added). I will therefore conclude the sen- the future. It must be noted that taste was sory experiences with some observations also the most ‘educational’ sense, because of the role of mobility in sensing the Great it was linked to the provision of aboriginal Bear Rainforest. knowledge about and uses of plants. As a As noted above, our routes were deter- result of this kind of information about mined to a great extent by the conditions forest products, a connection was created presented by nature; the tidal influence, the between the past and the present and, more water level in rivers, the density of shrubs significantly, First Nations culture and our and so forth. These were our “conduits in own (“this berry, that you are eating now, space” (Cresswell 2010, 24). We carried was used by our ancestors to…”)8. As a neither map nor compass to determine part of our gustatory experiences, we also routes or seek out ‘tourism highlights’ but

8 See also Moscardo (1996, 385) about the relevance of “generat[ing] visitor interest in a topic on-site by making connections to their experiences.”

44 Landabréfið 25, 2011 relied on our guides for directions. They Would I come back... I’ll certainly come back to took us along invisible routes, retraced our this area, but would I re-do this trip? Probably steps when encountering a ‘dead end’ and not, but I would highly recommend it to friends and knew detours. They assessed the suitability acquaintances who are fit enough, because it’s not, you of viewing spots by monitoring the water know, I’m older and you, you would have to be quite level, the presence of fish and berries and fit at my age in order to do this and fit enough and not timid about the great outdoors. I mean if they other environmental cues that indicated that didn’t... didn’t have some hiking experience I don’t bears might want to come to this place to eat think they should do it.[...] if I wasn’t fit I couldn’t or rest. Due to the changing levels of water, have done it. fish etc., such locations could be different on a day-to-day or hour-to-hour basis. Due The physical strain of the hike is also vis- to the impact of nature, the weather, the ible (sweating) and audible (heavy breathing growth of plants during times when routes by the person operating the camera) when were used less by guides, the routes taken revisiting the video data. The experience offered different affordances, at times mak- was akin to what MacPherson (2009, 1048) ing it easy for us to pass through but not observed: “Walkers have a temporal orien- at others. Since we did not have a map (or tation to the present moment and to the GPS), we were not conscious of distance demands of the terrain they are walking travelled. Having said so, map-distance through”. The focus was very much on the would not have been as meaningful as felt now-moment, looking to the ground, the distance. Considering the backing up, retrac- roots under our feet, or the algae-covered ing, detouring and hiking up and down we rocks in the water. The guides, through were required to do, it was probable that their multiple visits under different condi- we crossed greater distances than simply tions, were very familiar with the terrain from A to B on a map. However, longer and all its ruggedness and slipperiness. But distance might appear shorter due to the the tourists experienced difficulties nego- richness of experiences encountered along tiating the terrain, some more than others. the route. As a result, although our bodies Those who exercised regularly benefited might have become increasingly tired, they as their bodies did not tire out as quickly, simultaneously came to life (see also Eden- were more flexible or better able to bal- sor 2000b) ance. Those whose bodies were aged, or The video data reveals the effort we even impaired by inappropriate clothing undertook to move, trying to get across were less mobile (see also Michael 2000). logs, or rivers, against the flow of water, Our youngest traveller either had a view- and through mud - with our boots getting point from close to the ground or from a stuck (see video clip, van Hoven 2011g). baby-carrier backpack, which enabled her Annemieke’s research notes reveal: to look further ahead. None of us had the same view of the forest as we were moving Olaf and Caitlin are not coming along because the through it. In spite of the strain of move- trail here [Powles River] is too rough [...] we follow ment described here, there were also mo- the [Spirit Bear’s] trail through thick forest. Then we ments of standstill. However, during these cross a river and our feet are increasingly becoming wet inside our boots. moments, even though our legs did not move, we were not immobile. Instead, we Margot’s recollections of the trip high- extended limbs to grab plants for tasting, light the physical strain as she explains: extended our senses by smelling, listening

Landabréfið 25, 2011 45 or viewing, gazing through binoculars or of a plane and boat when moving towards cameras in order to spot wildlife (see also the forest, and walking/ hiking/ wading Lund and Wilson 2010). As is apparent when moving through the forest. Even from the description above, and in the when the walking stops, the body remains words of Cresswell (2010, 25), “moving mobile in reaching out to the forest in dif- is an energy-consuming business. It can ferent ways: touching, smelling, tasting and be hard work”. Therefore, as the number hearing. These modes are relevant because of hours hiked progressed, spots that were they provide barriers and opportunities for chosen as potential viewing spots inadvert- partaking in the multi-sensory experiences ently became resting spots as, finally, some described. For example, planes and boats as group members’ bodies demanded relaxa- means of transportation comprise a selec- tion and sometimes even sleep. tion mechanism for potential visitors (e.g. those with sufficient funds to pay for and Conclusions without fear of such means of transporta- In this article, I presented different, multi- tion). Different routes to and in the forest sensory experiences and tourist perform- required different mobilities, and different ances in the context of hiking in the Great mobilities result in different distances (or Bear Rainforest. When compared to our nearnesses) to the elements of the forest. first, Cartesian view of the forest from the It is through these mobilities that relation- airplane, it transpires that the hike made the ships with the forest were felt, formed, forest multi-dimensional. Hiking turned out interrupted, renewed and interpreted (see to be “a place-making practice” (Waitt et al also Cresswell, 2010). 2009, 44). The hike helped recognize, under- The context for this kind of tourism stand and engage with landscape, the forest facilitated by Spirit Bear Adventures pro- and its elements as something alive and as vides a specific experience that may not be possessing the “ability to actively engage us mirrored by many ecotourism operators. and provoke our senses” (Abram 1996, 56). In the discussion above, I noted that the Dewsbury and Cloke (2009, 696) stipulated structures controlling access and the level “landscape encapsulates embodied practices of direct contact with nature and wildlife of being in the world, including ways of was largely determined by the forces of seeing but extending beyond sight to both nature themselves, rather than vehicles a sense of being that includes all senses and encapsulating the tourist, boardwalks, an openness to being affected”. In perform- signs, viewing platforms etc. Having said ing tourism in the Great Bear Rainforest that, some degree of control was exercised this is exactly what occurred, the travel- by the guides who were in charge of the ling being was affected by the forest and routes we hiked as well as encouraged some its elements, and the boundaries between behaviour such as tasting plants whilst cau- one and the other were blurred. As Lund tioning against other such as wandering off and Benediktsson (2010, 2) maintained, alone in grizzly territory. Markwell (2001) “the land itself is imbued with an ability to commented on restrictions imposed by the transfer meanings to humans”. The transfer tourism industry on human/ wildlife inter- of meaning largely proceeded by employing action. It is possible that a key difference is the senses, by smelling, feeling, listening to in the extent to which ecotourism operators and tasting the forest. perceive of nature as ‘Other’, fearsome, and There are different modes of mobility risky, and of human guides as possessing that structured our experience, i.e. the use both the knowledge worth conveying about

46 Landabréfið 25, 2011 nature and the ability and means to do so. In ism: implications for the design of powerful contrast, Spirit Bear Adventures approaches interpretive experiences. Tourism Management nature as an active element in the tourism 32(4): 770–779. experience, as possessing the ability to con- Carolan, M. S. 2009: “I do therefore there is”: vey knowledge. This may be attributed to enlivening socio-environmental theory. Envi- the way in which the First Nations’ guides ronmental Politics 18(1): 1–17. defined the relationship between humans CBC 1997: The fight over ‘spirit bear’. May 27th, and nature. The following quote by a mem- 1997, Clearcutting and Logging: the war in the woods. ber of one of the First Nations in the Great CBC Digital Archive, http://archives.cbc.ca/ Bear Rainforest illustrates this (Easterbrock, environment/environmental_protection/ personal conversation: topics/679-3924/, 1998 (accessed June 24, 2011). Koeye [watershed in the Great Bear Rainforest] to me is just [...] a beautiful, spiritual place. It’s a place Clapp, R. A. 2004: Wilderness ethics and politi- that has a gift of teaching all of us life-lessons that cal ecology: remapping the Great Bear Rain- will carry for the rest of our lives. forest. Political Geography 23(7): 839–862. Ecotourism operators elsewhere might Clarke, S. 2002: From aesthetics to object relations: be encouraged then to offer more multi- situating Klein in the Freudian ‘uncanny’. http:// sensory experiences, but this may require www.btinternet.com/~psycho_social/Vol1/ redefining the role of nature in the tourism JPSS1-SHC1.htm (accessed June 24, 2011). experiences not in terms of a passive object Cresswell, T. 2010: Towards politics of mobility. to use as setting or admire from afar but as Environment and Planning D: Society and Space an active element to work with. 28: 17–31.

Acknowledgements Crouch, D. 2001: Spatialities and the feeling There are several people who contributed to of doing. Social & Cultural Geography 2(1): the becoming of this article. I would first like 61–75. to thank Doug, Vern and Murray for making Curtin, S. 2006: Swimming with dolphins: a possible the journey upon which the article is phenomenological exploration of tourist based, as well as Margot Steward and Lucas recollections. International Journal of Tourism Aykroyd for participating. The Gratama Research 8: 301–315. foundation financed a significant part of the research. Paul Barratt and Gunnþóra Ólafsdóttir Dann, G. M. S. & J. K. S. Jacobsen 2003: Tourism and Markús Þór Andrésson provided a forum smellscapes. Tourism Geographies 5(1): 3–25. for presenting earlier versions of the article. Tim Edensor had many encouraging words during a Daugstad, K. 2008: Negotiating landscape in bear conversation. Last but not least, the article . Annals of Tourism Research 35(2): benefited greatly from the comments made by 402–426. two anonymous referees - thank you. DeMares, R. & K. Krycka 1998: Wild-animal- triggered peak experiences: transpersonal References aspects. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology Abram, D. 1996: The spell of the sensuous: perception 30(2): 161–177. and language in a more-than-human world. New York: Vintage Books. Dempsey J, 2010: Tracking grizzly bears in Brit- ish Columbia’s environmental politics. Envi- Beardsworth A. & A. Bryman 2001: The wild ronment and Planning A 42(5): 1138–1156. animal in late modernity. Tourist Studies 1(1): 83–104. Dewsbury, J. D. & P. Cloke 2009: Spiritual landscapes: existence, performance and im- Ballantyne, R., J. Packer & L.A. Sutherland manence. Social & Cultural Geography 10(6): 2010: Visitors’ memories of wildlife tour- 695–711.

Landabréfið 25, 2011 47 Edensor, T. 2000a: Walking in the British coun- Hoven, B. van 2011e: Smell. http://www.youtube. tryside: reflexivity, embodied practices and com/watch?v=pQmsFxHU2IA (accessed ways to escape. Body & Society 6: 81–106. October 13, 2011). Edensor, T. 2000b: Staging tourism: tourists as Hoven, B. van 2011f: Taste. http://www.youtube. performers. Annals of Tourism Research 27(2): com/watch?v=1xozhyPKcqo (accessed Oc- 322–344. tober 13, 2011). Edensor, T. 2001: Performing tourism, staging Hoven, B. van 2011g: Mobility. http://www. tourism. (Re)producing tourist space and youtube.com/watch?v=-ZzGUFVKwug practice. Tourist Studies 1(1): 59–81. (accessed October 13, 2011). Everett, S. 2008: Beyond the visual gaze? The Howlett, M., J. Rayner & C. Tollefson 2009: pursuit of an embodied experience through From government to governance in forest food tourism. Tourist Studies 8(3): 337–358. planning? Lessons from the case of the Brit- Feintuch, B. 2004: The conditions for Cape ish Columbia Great Bear Rainforest initiative. Breton fiddle music: the social and economic Forest Policy and Economics 11(5-6): 383–391. setting of a regional soundscape. Ethnomusicol- Ingold, T. 1993: The temporality of the land- ogy 48(1): 73–104. scape. World Archaeology 25(2): 152–174. Franklin, A. & M. Crang 2001: The trouble with tourism and travel theory? Tourist Stud- Larsen, J. 2001: Tourism mobilities and the travel ies 1(1): 5–22. glance: experiences of being on the move. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Gibson, C. & J. Connell 2007: Music, tourism 1(2): 80–98. and the transformation of Memphis. Tourism Geographies 9(2): 160–190. Lewis, N. 2000: The climbing body, nature and the experience of modernity. Body & Society Hoberg, G., S. Morishita & A. Paulsen 6(3–4): 58–80. 2004: The Great Bear Rainforest: Peace in the Woods? http://www.policy.forestry.ubc.ca/ Lin, Y., T. E. Pearson & L. A. Cai 2011: Food GBRainforest20041.pdf (accessed June 30t as a form of destination identity: A tourism 2011). destination brand perspective. Tourism & Hospitality Research 11(1): 30–48. Horkheimer, M & T. Adorno 1994: Dialectic of Enlightenment. New York: Continuum. Lund, K. A. & K. Benediktsson 2010: Introduc- tion: Starting a conversation with landscape. Hoven, B. van, A. Logtmeijer, O. van Hoven In: K. Benediktsson & K. A. Lund (eds.) 2009: A forest for the future. A documentary about Conversations with Landscape. Farnham: Ash- the struggle for the protection of Great Bear Rainfor- gate. Pp. 1–12. est. University of Groningen: Faculty of Spa- tial Sciences. mms://wmvideo.service.rug.nl/ Lund, K. A. & M. Willson 2010: Slipping into bdk/ber/frw/GBR.wmv%20 (accessed Oc- landscape . In: K. Benediktsson & K. A. Lund tober10, 2011). (eds.), Conversations with Landscape. Farnham: Hoven, B. van 2011a: Approaching the forest. http:/ Ashgate. Pp. 97–108. /www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqfe17Kxo_g MacPherson, H. 2009: The intercorporeal (accessed October 13, 2011). emergence of landscape: negotiating sight, Hoven, B. van 2011b: Bear viewing. http://www. blindness, and ideas of landscape in the Brit- youtube.com/watch?v=PZz2gSy73js (ac- ish countryside. Environment and Planning A, cessed October 13, 2011). 41: 1042–1054. Hoven, B. van 2011c: Sound. http://www. Manen, M. van 1990: Researching Lived Experience. youtube.com/watch?v=oL5E7Oa52kM (ac- The Althouse Press: Ontario, Canada. cessed October 13, 2011). Markwell, K. 2001: ‘An intimate rendezvous Hoven, B. van 2011d: Feel. http://www.youtube. with nature’?: mediating tourist-nature expe- com/watch?v=2UP-cBl2bYg (accessed Oc- riences at three tourist sites in Borneo. Tourist tober 13, 2011). Studies 1: 39–57.

48 Landabréfið 25, 2011 McCartney, A. 2002: Editorial. Circumscribed Reimchen, T. E. 2001. Salmon nutrients, nitro- journeys through soundscape composition. gen isotopes and coastal forests. Ecoforestry Organised Sound 7(1): 1–3. 16:13–17. McGookin, D., S. Brewster & P. Priego 2009: Reimchen, T. E. n.d.: The Salmon Forest Project. http: Audio bubbles: Employing non-speech audio //web.uvic.ca/~reimlab/salmonforest.html to support tourist wayfinding.In: M. E. Altin- (accessed June 23, 2011). soy, U. Jekosch & Brewster, S. (eds.), Haptic and Audio Interaction Design 2009 (LNCS 5763). Rodaway, P. 1994: Sensuous Geographies. London: Berlin: Springer. Pp. 41–50. Routledge. Macnaghten, P. & J. Urry. 2000: Bodies in the Rojek, C. & J. Urry 1997: Touring Cultures: woods. Body & Society 6(3–4): 166–182. Transformations of Travel and Theory. London: Routledge. Michael, M. 2000: These boots are made for walking...: mundane technology, the body and Rossiter, D. 2004: The nature of protest: human-environmental relations. Body & Society constructing the spaces of British Colum- 6(3–4): 107–126. bia’s rainforests. Cultural Geographies 11(2): 139–164. Moscardo, G. 1996: Mindful visitors. Heritage and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 23(2): Ryan, C., K. Hughes & S. Chirgwin 2000: The 376–397. gaze, spectacle and ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research 27(1): 148–163. Oakley I., M. R. McGee, S. Brewster & P. Gray 2000: Putting the feel in `look and feel’. Com- Schofield, P. 2009: Soft city, hard shell: Manches- puter-Human Interaction Letters 2(1): 415–422. ter’s popular music soundscape. International Obrador-Pons, P. 2007: A haptic geography of Journal of Tourism Policy 2(1–2): 24–36. the beach: naked bodies, vision and touch. Sims, R. 2009: Food, place and authenticity: local Social & Cultural Geography 8(1): 123–141. food and the experience. Pan, S. & C. Ryan 2009: Tourism sense-making: Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17(3): 321–336. the role of the senses and travel journalism. Smith, M. & A. Sterritt 2011: From Conflict to Journal of Travel& Tourism Marketing, 26: Collaboration: The Story of the Great Bear Rainfor- 625–639. est. http://tarsandsfreecoast.ca/downloads/ Paterson, M. 2005: The forgetting of touch: WWFpaper.pdf (accessed June 30, 2011). remembering geometry with eyes and hands, Spirit Bear Lodge n.d.: Wildlife, Bear Watching Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities Tours and Native Culture in BC’s Great Bear 10: 115–131. Rainforest.http://www.spiritbear.com (ac- Porteous, J. D. 1985: Smellscape. Progress in Hu- cessed October 10, 2011). man Geography 9(3): 356–78. Temple, N. (ed.) 2005: Salmon in the Great Bear Porteous, J. D. 1990: Landscapes of the Mind: Rainforest. Victoria, BC: Raincoast Conserva- Worlds of Sense and Metaphor. Toronto: Uni- tion Society. versity of Toronto Press. Tuan, Y-F. 1977. Space and Place: The Perspective Power, E.R. 2005: Human-nature relations in of Experience. Minneapolis: University of Min- suburban gardens. Australian Geographer 36(1): nesota Press. 39–53. Wainwright, A. 1969: Pennine Way Companion. Prescott-Allen, R. 2005: Coast Information Team Kendall: Westmorland Gazette. review report. http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/ citbc/c-citreview-jan05.pdf (accessed June Waitt, G., N. Gill & L. Head 2009: Walking 21, 2011). practice and suburban nature-talk. Social & Cultural Geography 10(1): 41–60. Price, K., A. Roburn & A. MacKinnon 2009: Ecosystem-based management in the Great Waitt, G. & R. Lane 2007: Four-wheel drives- Bear Rainforest Forest Ecology and Management capes: embodied understandings of the Kim- 258(4): 495–503. berley. Journal of Rural Studies 23: 156–169.

Landabréfið 25, 2011 49