EVOLVING PERSPECTIVES: INTEGRATING ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY AND HERITAGE APPRECIATION IN DINOSAUR PROVINCIAL PARK

by

DAVID JOHN VERHULST

Thesis Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Recreation Management

Acadia University Spring Convocation 2004

© by DAVID JOHN VERHULST, 2004 ii

This thesis by DAVID J. VERHULST was defended successfully in an oral examination on FRIDAY, April 16, 2004.

The examining committee for the thesis was:

______Dr. Kevin Whetter, Chair

______Dr. Pearlann Reichwein, External Reader

______Dr. David Duke, Internal Reader

______Dr. John Colton, Supervisor

______Dr. Susan Markam-Starr, Director’s Delegate

This thesis is accepted in its present form by the Division of Research and Graduate Studies as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree MASTER OF RECREATION MANAGEMENT.

______

iii

I, David John Verhulst, grant permission to the Head Librarian at Acadia University to provide copies of this thesis, on request, on a non-profit basis.

Author

Supervisor

Date iv

Table of Contents Table Of Contents iv

List Of Tables vii

Abstract viii

Definitions and Abbreviations ix Acknowledgements...... xi Chapter I - Introduction 1 Background...... 1 Statement of Purpose and Research Objectives...... 3 Focus Area for Research...... 4 Assumptions...... 5 Limitations ...... 6 Chapter II - Literature Review 7 Park Mandates and Goals……………………………………………………………….7 a) Agency-level mandates and goals...... 7 b) Site-level objectives, themes and concepts...... 10 HERITAGE PRESENTATION ...... 13 a) Historical Role of H.A./Interpretation ...... 13 b) Environmental Citizenship, Education and Ecological Literacy...... 17 1) An Interdisciplinary Approach to Learning...... 20 2) Systems Thinking ...... 23 3) Adopting a larger sense of time/history...... 24 4) Sense of Place...... 26 5) Community Co-operation...... 27 6) Experiential Learning ...... 29 ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY ...... 30 a) Overview...... 30 b) Environmental History and Parks...... 32 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF LITERATURE ...... 39 Chapter III - Methodology and Methods 43 The Interpretive Paradigm ...... 43 The Critical Paradigm...... 44 Summary...... 45 Methods 45 Participant Profiles/Sampling ...... 46 Collection of Data: In-Depth Interviews...... 50 Analysis of Data...... 51 Researcher Biases ...... 53 Trustworthiness...... 54 Ethical Considerations ...... 55 Chapter IV - Results 56 v

Introduction & Purpose of Study ...... 56 In-depth Interview Results...... 57 A\ Heritage Appreciation: Perceptions of Meaning and Purpose...... 59 A1 The Meaning of “Heritage Appreciation”...... 59 A1.1 Ambivalence and Confusion...... 59 A1.2 Shifts Focus from “Means” to “End Result” ...... 62 A1.3 Distrust – It Shifts the Focus Away From Natural Heritage...... 63 A2 The Purpose of Heritage Appreciation...... 64 A2.1 To Awaken/Inspire the Public...... 64 A2.2 To Promote Ecological Literacy/Environmental Citizenship ...... 65 A2.3 Informative Recreation ...... 69 B\ Current State of Heritage Appreciation Programming at Dinosaur Provincial Park ...... 70 B1 Messages that Interpreters and Managers Perceive Visitors are Leaving the Park With ...... 70 B1.1 The Programs are Impressive and “High Quality”...... 70 B1.2 Names and Number of Dinosaur Species Found at the Park ...... 72 B1.3 DPP is a Unique and Special Place ...... 72 B1.4 The Palaeontology and Geology of the Park is Unique and Important 73 B1.5 The three reasons why DPP is a World Heritage Site...... 74 B1.6 DPP is a Hard Place for People, Plants and Animals to Survive ...... 75 B2 Recommendations for Changing H.A. programming ...... 76 B2.1 More Community Outreach ...... 76 B2.2 Increase Emphasis on Systems Planning/ Connection between DPP and other Related Sites ...... 78 B2.3 Cater to a More Diverse Demographic Market...... 80 B2.4 More Experiential/Environmental Education Programs ...... 81 B2.5 Improve Presentation of the “Big Picture” and Answer the Question- “so what”?...... 82 B2.6 Improve Ability of Programming to Address Environmental Issues and Promote Environmental Citizenship...... 83 B3 Perceived issues related to change at Dinosaur Provincial Park...... 85 B3.1 Politics/Finances...... 85 B3.2 Limited Human Resources...... 87 B3.3 Fear of Change/Current Programming is “Stuck in a Rut”...... 89 B4 Opinions Regarding the Relationship Between “Nature” and “Culture”...... 91 B4.1 It is Helpful to Separate Nature and Culture...... 91 B4.2 Nature and Culture are Inseparable...... 92 B4.3 Current Programming Presents Nature and Culture Separately...... 95 B4.4 Current Programming Blends Nature and Culture...... 96 C\ Integrating Environmental History and Heritage Appreciation...... 97 C1 Support for Integrating Environmental History and Heritage Appreciation ...... 97 C1.1 The Environmental History Perspective fits with Park Mandates ...... 97 vi

C1.2 Environmental History Perspective is Suited to Promoting Ecological Citizenship ...... 100 C2 Issues associated with integrating Environmental History and Heritage Appreciation...... 101 C2.1 Environmental History is Different and Unfamiliar ...... 101 C2.3 Culture of Denial & Pre-Organised Opposition...... 103 C2.4 Discipline-Centred Perspectives of Park Managers...... 105 C2.5 The Need for Appropriate Leadership ...... 106 Chapter V- Discussion 109 Current Programming at Dinosaur Provincial Park and Park Mandates ...... 109 The Interconnectedness of “Human” and “Natural” Worlds...... 112 A Larger Sense of Time...... 116 Systems Thinking...... 122 A Community Approach...... 126 Integrating Environmental History and Heritage Appreciation at DPP: Prospects and Potential Challenges...... 130 Summary...... 137 Chapter VI - Summary and Conclusions 139 Current State of Heritage Appreciation Programming in Dinosaur Provincial Park ...... 139 Ability of Heritage Appreciation Programming to Meet Park Mandates...... 140 How Environmental History Could Influence Heritage Appreciation Programming...... 141 Integrating Environmental History and H.A. Programming: Appropriate Leadership...... 142 Implications and Conclusions...... 143 Recommendations for Future Research...... 147 Closing Notes...... 149 References 151

Appendix A - Heritage Appreciation Objectives- Dinosaur Provincial Park 162

Appendix B - Alberta’s Parks and Protected Areas Backgrounder and Key Message Framework (2003): A Summary 163

Appendix C - Dinosaur Provincial Park’s Themes and Concepts 165

Appendix D - Interpretation Programs by Theme 169

Appendix E - Interview Schedules 170 Appendix F - Informed Consent Forms...... …..173 vii

List of Tables

Table 1: DPP Programming Themes Organised by Discipline………………………….11

Table 2: Participants and their Specialisations…………………………………………..48

Table 3: Summary of Results - Themes and Sub-Themes………………………………58 viii

Abstract

Environmental history narratives integrate nature and culture and explore how people have influenced the land and how the land has influenced people throughout time.

While other researchers have suggested environmental history could benefit Heritage

Appreciation programming in parks, an assessment of how the integration would influence programming and its ability to achieve park mandates had not been completed prior to this research study.

Heritage Appreciation programming in Alberta Parks is currently in a growth phase. Agency-level mandates have been modified to reflect a commitment to the promotion of environmental citizenship. Presently, Heritage Appreciation programming at Dinosaur Provincial Park does not achieve this mandate. Through a series of in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, it became apparent that the promotion of ecological literacy was challenged by a lack of information conducive to integrating nature and culture and presenting the big picture to park visitors. It was determined that the incorporation of environmental history narratives into park programming could improve the ability of Heritage Appreciation programming in Dinosaur Provincial Park to promote ecological citizenship. However, the successful integration of environmental history into

Heritage Appreciation programming in parks like Dinosaur Provincial Park will require specific leadership strategies that will anticipate and address potential challenges to the environmental history perspective. ix

Definitions

i) Culture: A learned collection of traditions, values, beliefs and ways of understanding

the world shared by a group of people. When science and nature are referred to in this

study, it is maintained that they are a part of, rather than separate from culture

(Bodley, 1994). ii) Ecological Integrity: Ecological integrity is achieved when “a region exists in a state

that is determined to be characteristic of its natural condition wherein all abiotic

components, native species, biological communities, rates of change and supporting

processes are able to persist over time” (MPHIA, 2000, p.3). iii) Ecological citizenship: An ecological citizen is “someone who knows about, cares for

and acts on behalf of the cultural and ecological integrity of their home place”

(Cuthbertson & Curthroys, 2002, p. 227). For this study, ecological citizenship is

synonymous with environmental citizenship. iv) Environmental History: Environmental history is an interdisciplinary and critical

study that investigates the historic influences of humans on nature and nature on

humans (Cronon, 1992; Stewart, 1998; Tudge, 1996; Worster, 1988). v) Heritage Appreciation Programming (Park Interpretation): “The revelation of

meanings about cultural and natural resources that “enhances our understanding,

appreciation, and therefore, protection of historic sites and natural wonders” (Beck &

Cable, 1998, p. xi).

x

Abbreviations i) DPP: Dinosaur Provincial Park ii) H.A.: Heritage Appreciation iii) NPS: National Park Service (United States) iv) PPA: Parks and Protected Areas xi

Acknowledgements

The preparation and completion of this thesis was not a solo effort. On my journey to completing this research, I was supported and assisted by many people and

agencies. My supervisor, Dr. John Colton, provided valuable guidance and direction and

Dr. David Duke generously offered his wisdom and expertise throughout the process.

This thesis was made better because of the assistance of these two individuals.

I would also like to acknowledge my research participants whose honesty,

sincerity, and insight helped to make this research successful. In particular, I am grateful for the support offered by the 2003 Heritage Appreciation Team at Dinosaur Provincial

Park. I will remember their contribution and always treasure the memories of an enjoyable summer in the Alberta Badlands.

The financial support provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Resource

Council of Canada (SSHRC) and Datatel also deserve acknowledgement. The assistance provided by these organisations eased the graduate experience significantly and facilitated the successful completion of this research study.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the support and patience of my fiancée,

Ronna, whose insight helped me to express my ideas with increased clarity.

1

Chapter I

Introduction

Background

Parks have become symbols of the ecological and cultural heritage of countries, provinces, states and municipalities. They are a source of pride and of national identity.

Over time, park mandates have slowly evolved to reflect changing values and perceptions of what a park should be. In 2004, many park management plans are guided by the dual mandate of providing recreational opportunities and protecting natural and cultural heritage. There is also an increasing emphasis on the protection of ecological integrity in management plans.

One of the implications associated with the shift to protecting ecological integrity has been the acknowledgement that the accomplishment of this mandate necessitates action and management beyond the park boundary (MPHIA, 2001; Parks Canada, 2003;

Searle, 2000; Woodley, 2002). More specifically, protecting ecological integrity requires parks to communicate the connection between ecosystem health and human health and the need for public assistance to achieve this mandate. It is generally accepted that

Heritage Appreciation Programming is the best way for parks secure the public assistance required to achieve the mandate of promoting ecological integrity (Alberta Parks, 2003;

NPS, 2001; Parks Canada, 2003).

In the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) plan (2001), it is stated that Heritage

Appreciation (H.A.) programs will “encourage the development of a personal stewardship ethic and broaden support for preserving park resources” (p.1). Similarly,

Parks Canada (2003) states that the purpose of H.A. programming is to “raise awareness, 2 foster understanding, [a] sense of ownership and strengthen emotional connections to

Canada’s National parks” (p.23). A parallel task is given to heritage presenters in Alberta

Parks. According to Alberta Parks (2003), the purpose of H.A. is “to provide opportunities to explore, understand and appreciate the natural heritage of Alberta and enhance public awareness of our relationship to and dependence on it” (p.1). The creation of a “personal stewardship ethic” and/or “enhancing public awareness of our relationship to and dependence on our natural heritage” is akin to what other researchers refer to as “ecological citizenship” or “ecological literacy” (Capra, 1999; Cuthbertson &

Curthroys, 2002; McClaren, 1989; Puk, 2002).

Despite the fact that the promotion of ecological citizenship is the stated goal of

H.A at the agency-level in many parks, parallel changes to site-level objectives in some of these parks have yet to occur. In Alberta’s Dinosaur Provincial Park (DPP), for example, the promotion of ecological literacy is not addressed in any of the six site-level objectives for H.A. (see Appendix A). Instead, each of the six objectives focuses on one of two things: the transmission of heritage information to park visitors and/or the protection of park resources through the creation of awareness, appreciation and understanding (DPP, 2003b). The ANZECC (Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council) Best Practice Model for management of heritage presentation suggests that H.A. programs are most effective when site level and agency level goals are congruent (Earthlines, 1999; Ecoleaders, 2003). The incongruence between Alberta

Parks’ H.A. goals and DPP’s site-level goals is, therefore, problematic.

This research study is designed, in part, to investigate this problem of incongruity and determine whether environmental history could, in fact, influence the promotion of 3 ecological citizenship through H.A. programming. Environmental history narratives integrate “nature” and “culture” and explore how people have influenced the land and how the land has influenced people throughout time. Several researchers have suggested that environmental history could benefit heritage presentation in parks (Louter, 2003;

Opie, 1985; Stine, 2002;Worster, 2001), but little research has actually been conducted with respect to the integration of environmental history and H.A. programming. That said, some progress has been made in the last three to four years, integrating environmental history and park management in the American National Park Service.

Little formal integration has occurred in Canadian parks (national or provincial).

Statement of Purpose and Research Objectives

The purpose of this research study is to assess how environmental history could influence heritage presentation in Dinosaur Provincial Park. This assessment was guided by the following three objectives:

1. To assess the current state of H.A. programming in DPP.

2. To assess the ability of current programming to meet agency and

site-level objectives and mandates.

3. To describe how the adoption of an environmental history

perspective could impact H.A. programming and its ability to

achieve H.A. mandates.

The above three objectives were addressed through a critical examination of program scripts and related literature, in combination with a series of fourteen in-depth interviews. Interviews were conducted between July 1st and September 4th 2003 at 4 various location throughout Alberta. Seven heritage presenters, four active managers, one retired manager and two environmental historians were interviewed.

Focus Area for Research

Dinosaur Provincial Park is a “flagship” park in Alberta’s Parks and Protected

Areas network. One of the reasons it was selected for the focus area of this research study was the Park’s emphasis on visitor education through H.A. programming. One third of the park is designated as a natural preserve where public access is prohibited without the proper permit or guided tour (Alberta Parks, 2002). Guided Tours are the cornerstone of DPP’s Heritage Appreciation Programming. Heritage presenters at DPP are responsible for the delivery of eleven programs that range from guided hikes to bus tours and amphitheatre shows. The programs are well attended by the public. Between May and September of 2003, over 37,000 visitors participated in guided H.A. programs and close to 700 were turned away due to a lack of space (DPP, 2003a).

Another reason I selected DPP as the focus area for my research was because of my personal experience with the park and its H.A. programs. Prior to beginning this research study, I spent a summer as a Heritage Presenter at the park. When I conducted this research study, I was the H.A. team supervisor. Both seasons I spent at the park provided me with an invaluable insider’s view of H.A. programming that helped me assess the current state of H.A. programming at DPP. I also gained important connections with park managers and interpreters that both facilitated and gave depth to the information gathered for this study. 5

Assumptions

I approached this research with the assumption that my experience and close connection to the Dinosaur Provincial Park would enhance my research and improve the accuracy of the information collected. Like other critical and interpretive researchers, I believe that answers to social questions are contained within the pluralistic lives and experiences of people involved in the social phenomenon in question (Creswell, 2003;

Hemmingway, 1999; Neuman, 2000; Samdahl,1999). For this reason, I chose to address the objectives of this research study by conducting in-depth interviews with those responsible for each of the three “components” of my research study: park managers, heritage presenters and environmental historians. Since I was an employee of DPP and

Alberta Parks, I had already established the trust that field researchers require prior to conducting quality research studies (Neuman, 2000; Wolcott, 1995).

When I designed my research study and conducted my interviews, I shared the assumption of critical researchers that it is impossible to be a detached observer

(Hemmingway, 1999; Neuman, 2000). Critical research is grounded on the belief that

“the researcher shares the web of historically developed understandings about which social phenomena are relevant to and appropriate for social inquiry” (Hemmingway,

1999, p. 492). Being directly involved in H.A. programming at DPP provided me with first-hand experience and a historical understanding of H.A. at the park. I also believe that my position as heritage presenter gave me insights I would have been unable to obtain without direct involvement with the park. 6

Limitations

This assessment of H.A. programming at DPP was limited to an exploration of the relevant literature and the perceptions and opinions of park managers, heritage presenters and environmental historians. Results are accurate to the extent that they represent the opinions of research participants at the time of being interviewed. It should be noted, however, that these opinions could change over time, or with the introduction of new knowledge.

Another limitation of this study was the small population of environmental historians to draw on for interviews. Due to the low population of environmental historians in Canada, and the even lower population of environmental historians with experience or knowledge of H.A. in parks, only two were interviewed. It is understood that it is difficult to make accurate generalisations based on the opinions of two individuals (Creswell, 2003; Neuman, 2000). In recognition of this limitation, the data gathered from environmental historians was cross-referenced with related literature and particularly with Louter’s (2003) experience integrating environmental history and the

National Park Service (NPS). Blending parks and environmental history is an emerging field and every effort was made to include research and comments from the small body of literature that exists on the subject to address the limitation imposed by only interviewing two environmental historians.

7

Chapter II

Literature Review

The purpose of this research study is to assess how environmental history could

influence Heritage Appreciation (H.A.) in Dinosaur Provincial Park (DPP). Literature

specifically related to the incorporation of environmental history in H.A. is, however,

very limited. Therefore, the following review of literature will frame this study in the

wider fields of park mandates and goals, heritage presentation and environmental history.

These three areas of study will provide the necessary background knowledge required to

address the research objectives.

Park Mandates and Goals

Accurately assessing how environmental history could influence H.A.

programming at DPP requires developing a thorough understanding of existing park

literature that governs the direction and intent of current programming. Agency and site-

level mandates, key messages and program scripts will be reviewed to develop a

thorough understanding of the gap between agency and site-level objectives and the

extent to which that gap is evident in literature governing current programming.

a) Agency-level mandates and goals

Currently, Parks and Protected Areas (PPA) is a department of the Ministry of

Community Development (C.D.). The mission of the Ministry is to “enhance and

preserve the quality of life for Albertans” (Alberta Community Development, 2003, p.

10). Parks and other protected areas are believed to contribute to the quality of life of 8

Albertans by “preserving, protecting and presenting Alberta’s natural and cultural heritage to residents of the province” (Alberta Community Development, 2003, p. 36).

Framing PPA within the vision of the Ministry of Community Development is a recent phenomenon. Until 2000, Alberta’s PPA was administered by the Ministry of the

Environment. Researchers working for the consulting firm, Ecoleaders, has noted that the PPA division has been moved between several agencies in the last twenty years

(Ecoleaders, 2003). Frequent organisational changes like this are known to result in problems such as incongruent or conflicting agency and site-level goals (Earthlines,

1999; Ecoleaders, 2003). This could be one of the reasons why there is a gap between the H.A. objectives at DPP and the revised objectives of Alberta’s PPA. The existence of incongruent goals like those at DPP can often impact the effectiveness and efficiency of

H.A. programming (Earthlines, 1999; Ecoleaders, 2003). The agency level objectives of

Alberta’s PPA will be reviewed to determine what messages should be communicated through H.A. programming in parks like DPP.

Alberta’s PPA Key Messages Framework (2003) describes the current vision, goals and messages of Parks and Protected Areas in the province (See Appendix B). A review of agency-level mission statements, goals and key messages reveals that, at least on paper, PPA is committed to preserving ecological integrity and promoting what ultimately amounts to ecological citizenship through H.A. programming. The

Framework, which was given to DPP’s H.A. staff at the 2003 provincial interpreter’s conference, also outlines the role of the interpreter in communicating park agency messages. 9

On a site-specific basis, the interpreter “should know how [their] site contributes to the vision, mission, and four program goals and determine how [they] contribute to these foundation statements in [their] role within H.A.” (Alberta Parks, 2003, p. 2). It is also emphasised that interpreters are to

find out what the management challenges are at that site and explore ways that

[their] programming can be used as a management tool to communicate these

[key messages] to park visitors… [Interpreters] are the advocates of

environmental stewardship values and practices in [their] protected area and

beyond. (Alberta Parks, 2003, p. 6)

What is significant about the above two quotations is that the onus of communicating agency messages is placed solely on the interpreters themselves.

With the exception of a few managers and supervisors, all Heritage Presenters with Alberta Parks are seasonal. This fact, combined with the steep learning curve many new interpreters experience starting with Alberta Parks, makes it necessary to question how realistic it is to expect Heritage Presenters to incorporate all of the key park messages in their H.A. programs. This is especially true at DPP where all but one of the eleven programs interpreters are responsible for presenting are scripted. The scripts are not “word-for-word” outlines of what to tell park visitors, so there is a fair amount of flexibility for interpreters to add in relevant messages. However, because scripts are grounded in site-level objectives, it is unlikely that new agency level objectives can simply be inserted into existing programs. 10

b) Site-level objectives, themes and concepts

Previously, it was stated that there are six site-level objectives that guide current programming at DPP and that these objectives do not address the Agency’s focus on promoting ecological citizenship (see Appendix A). In their evaluation of the Heritage

Appreciation foundations at Alberta’s Cypress Hills Interprovincial Park (CHIPP),

Ecoleaders (2003) came to a similar conclusion. More specifically, they stated that:

Many of the inconsistencies we found [between agency and site-level goals] arise

from PPA’s recent shift from the simpler, more traditional interpretation to a more

dynamic life-long learning/environmental education focus, reflecting the agency’s

transition to focus more on environmental integrity, protection and tourism

(Ecoleaders, 2003, p.1).

To comprehend the extent of the shift necessary for H.A. programming at DPP to meet new agency objectives, a thorough analysis of the foundations of site-level program scripts is required.

H.A. programs at DPP are designed to communicate one or more of five site-level themes. These themes are further subdivided into concepts and sub-concepts (see

Appendix C). A review of the five themes that govern the programs revealed that they are generally representative of various academic disciplines. This point is made clearly in the following table (see Table 1). 11

Table 1: DPP Programming Themes Organised by Discipline

Theme Discipline (s) I – Palaeontological discoveries in DPP represent the Palaeontology/Palaeo-ecology greatest concentration and diversity of dinosaur remains (note: Concept 3 and in the world subconcepts 1 &2 fit into the discipline of “cultural history”) II – A diversity of Flora and Fauna have adapted to the Ecology/Biology conditions and habitats of DPP III – The landforms of the park are a result of Geology/Physical Geography sedimentation, erosion, river and glacial activities IV – Colonisation by man – a contrast exists in land-use Cultural history/Archaeology between pre-historic native peoples and recent settlement by contemporary people V- World Heritage Site Status and Management Protected Areas Management

It is necessary to highlight the disciplinary division of program themes and concepts

because it could impact the ability of programming to accomplish the agency mandate of

promoting ecological citizenship (Capra, 1999; McClaren, 1989). This connection is

addressed further in this chapter and discussed in-depth in Chapter V.

Although the above table illustrates that the themes that govern current programs

at DPP are generally separated by discipline, it does not illustrate that any one program

can include several different themes. A breakdown of interpretive programs by theme

illustrates this point (see Appendix D). What is significant to note here is that, although

programs incorporate a number of diverse themes and concepts, and subsequently a number of different disciplines, relationships between these themes and concepts are not clearly articulated.

One of the heritage appreciation programs at the park, the Badlands Bus Tour, for

example, incorporates almost every theme and concept, but is organised in such a way

that a different theme and/or concept is discussed at each stop. Depending on the day and 12 the individual interpreter, the bus tour can have between eight and twelve “stops.” The majority, if not all, of these stops are connected by a common theme: DPP is a World

Heritage Site for three reasons. If the Bus Tour were simplified and broken down into three steps representing these three reasons it would look like this:

Stop #1 – DPP protects the largest remaining stand of Cottonwood trees in

Alberta. At this stop, visitors learn about the endangered cottonwood habitat and

the diverse flora and fauna it supports.

Stop #2 - DPP boasts the largest example of badlands formations in Canada.

At this stop, visitors learn about how the landscape was formed through

glaciation and erosion

Stop #3 – DPP is the richest fossil resource in the world. At this stop visitors

learn about the number and names of different dinosaur species found at the park

and view some fossil displays

Furthermore, if these stops are examined from a disciplinary perspective, it becomes evident that they can be divided into three different disciplines – ecology, geology and palaeontology - respectively. Although there are other stops on the tour, most of them simply elaborate upon the communication of the above messages. Some interpreters also have different stops to talk about the cultural history at the park.

Based on my experience at the park evaluating the tours of other interpreters and conducting a review of the Bus Tour script, the only link that is clearly established between each of the stops is DPP’s World Heritage Site Status. Many interpreters do, however, make an interdisciplinary connection when discussing why so many fossils are found at the park. For example, it is typically explained that the wet coastal flood plain 13 of late-Cretaceous Alberta had sediment rich rivers (palaeo-ecology). The sediment carried by these rivers buried dead creatures such as dinosaurs and enabled them to be permineralised (fossilised) over time (palaeontology). After being buried for millions of years, a glacial flood sculpted the badlands landscape and erosion that continues to day exposes the bones of dinosaurs (geology). As a consequence of all these events, palaeontologists have been coming to the DPP area since the late 1900’s to dig up dinosaur bones (cultural history). This interdisciplinary connection is made on many of the tours, but most clearly on the Centrosaurus Bone Bed Hike. The relationship between an interdisciplinary approach to learning and the promotion of ecological citizenship will be described later in this literature review and discussed in Chapter V.

Other H.A. programs offered at DPP are divided along similar disciplinary lines as the Bus Tour and are generally narrower in focus (see Appendix D). Site-level themes and concepts (see Appendix C) ground the disciplinary division evident in current programming and determine what messages are communicated to park visitors. Messages are very site-specific and do not address the significance of PPA or the relationship of park-themes to the lives of park visitors. None of the individual program objectives directly address agency mandates such as the promotion of ecological citizenship.

Heritage Presentation

a) Historical Role of H.A./Interpretation

To provide a foundation for understanding current and future developments of

H.A. programming in DPP, including the adoption of environmental history, the

historical role of H.A. in parks will be briefly summarised. 14

A comprehensive history of interpretation in the American NPS was completed by Mackintosh (1985). Although the NPS “institutionalised” interpretation as the communication of information about natural and cultural heritage it did not begin with the formation of National Parks (Knudson, Cable & Beck, 1995; Mackintosh, 1985;

MPHIA, 2001). Indeed, the communication of information related to natural and cultural heritage, is as old as storytelling and human communities themselves (Knudson, Cable &

Beck, 1995; MPHIA, 2001).

Knudson, Cable & Beck (1995) suggest that once institutionalised, the purpose of interpretation was primarily to communicate the essence and meaning of culture and nature to society. As the field evolved, the initial purpose did not change, but there was an increased emphasis on the use of interpretation as a management tool. Over the last century, interpretation has increasingly been viewed and promoted as a management tool capable of increasing visitor compliance with park regulations, improving public safety and raising public support for park values, policies and practices (Beck & Cable, 1998;

Cross, 1999; Wolfe, 1997). It has also been promoted as an effective tool for decreasing vandalism, poaching and other depreciative behaviour inside park boundaries (Butler,

1980, Butler, 1993; Butler & Hvenegaard, 2002; Wolfe, 1997).

Since its formalisation by park agencies at National, Provincial and State levels, the effectiveness and utility of park interpretation in general has been criticised. In one study, for example, the researcher made the following conclusion:

Interpreters as well as their supervisors seem at a loss to comprehend what they are

there for…Basic communications skills were glaringly lacking…[F]ar too many of

the interpreters observed were merely parroting raw information. They were all too 15

often warm-blooded tape recorders utilising only that portion of the brain which deals

with cold facts. (Risk cited in Mackintosh, 1985, p.4)

Risk’s criticism clearly suggests that interpretation is not always effective in accomplishing its stated goals – management related, or otherwise. It also highlights the fact that information – whether historical, scientific or geographic – is not enough to make an interpretive program effective in encouraging people to appreciate and understand their natural and cultural heritage. Indeed, information by itself has little meaning or ability to inspire action or appreciation (Knudson, Cable & Beck, 1995;

MPHIA, 2001).

Supporters of interpretation suggest that, if it is done well, H.A. programming has the ability to encourage people to be conservation-minded. More specifically, it is generally believed that, using appropriate techniques, the interpreter can transmit knowledge to park visitors, which then translates to understanding. This understanding leads to appreciation and it is widely assumed that appreciation leads to action (e.g. supporting conservation initiatives). This linear model has been modified over the years but the premise has remained the same (Beck & Cable, 1998; Cross, 1999; Knudson,

Cable & Beck, 1995; MPHIA, 2001).

Hungerford (1996) challenged the assumption that interpreters can change human behaviour simply by making visitors more knowledgeable about the environment and its associated issues. He argued that the traditional linear model that links knowledge to awareness and awareness to action is not supported by research into environmentally responsible behaviour. It has also been suggested that changing individual behaviour to be more reflective of environmental values requires more “formalised” learning goals 16 such as those outlined through school curriculums. Some researchers also argue that H.A. programs in parks are not long enough to effectively promote ecological citizenship

(Hungerford, 1996; Knapp, 2001).

Claims, like Hungerford’s (1996) and Knapp’s (2001), that interpretation is not conducive to promoting ecological citizenship are not well supported by empirical evidence. Knapp (2001) bases his argument on the fact that “it is difficult to find evidence that a short term interpretive experience can create the steward or preservationist that the profession desires” (p. 62). This is true, but it is equally true that it is difficult to find evidence that it is not effective. In fact, a tool that accurately measures ecological literacy has yet to be developed. Moreover, although there are not any studies that suggest H.A. programming can promote ecological citizenship, there are several that indicate programming is effective at modifying visitor behaviour and capable of increasing visitor compliance with park regulations (Butler, 1980; Cross, 1999; Orams

& Hill, 1998;Wolf, 1997). Many of these studies have been conducted in Alberta's very own PPA network, including DPP.

Wolfe (1997) studied the effectiveness of an interpretive poster campaign in

Kananaskis Country, Alberta and reported a 50 per cent reduction in the number of visitors reprimanded by park staff for picking flowers after the poster campaign was launched. Similarly, in Dinosaur Provincial Park, the establishment of interpretive hikes into the natural preserve (restricted area) resulted in a 90 per cent decrease in the number of visitors “illegally” entering into the restricted area of the park (Wolfe, 1997). Visitor attendance at H.A. programs also increased visitor intervention in rock-art vandalism at

Writing on Stone Provincial Park (Butler, 1980). 17

Criticisms of the ability of H.A. programs to promote ecological citizenship often distinguish between “environmental education” and “interpretation” (Hungerford, 1996;

Knapp, 2001). In Alberta Parks, the line between environmental education and interpretation is blurred. “Environmental education” is typically reserved for references to programs involving school children. “Interpretation” refers to all other programming.

Whether a distinction is made between “interpretation” and “environmental education” is largely irrelevant for this discussion of issues relating to the fields. Indeed, because they share the same mission, they share many of the same issues. There is an inherent duality between the fields of interpretation and environmental education. The purpose of noting this duality is to frame this study in the larger field of “environmental education” where many of the newest models and theories related to the development of environmental citizenship are published.

It is widely accepted that Heritage Appreciation programming is one of the best ways for park management to preserve ecological integrity (Butler, 1993; Butler &

Hvenegaard, 2002; Machlis, 1996; Mackintosh, 1985; MPHIA, 2001; Searle, 2000;

Swinnerton, 1999; Van Tighem, 1986). Traditional forms of H.A. may not, however, be suited to the challenge (Conrad & Carrier, 2000; Cuthburtson & Curthroys, 2002; Searle,

2000)

b) Environmental Citizenship, Education and Ecological Literacy

Prior to discussing education strategies that researchers feel are more suited to the

promotion of environmental citizenship, the concept of environmental citizenship needs

to be explored in more detail. The details that are revealed in this exploration will help to 18 form a foundation for a discussion on the integration of environmental history and H.A. in DPP. A recent publication for schools describes environmental citizenship in the following way:

The idea of environmental citizenship is that each and every one of us is a

member of a larger community of living things, whose home is the

biosphere…Becoming an environmental citizen means making a personal

commitment to learning more about the environment and to taking responsible

environmental action. (Environment Canada, 2003, p.2)

From the above description it is evident that environmental citizens have two defining qualities: they make a personal commitment to learning about the environment as well as acting in a manner that is considered “environmentally responsible”. In their evaluation of different types of environmental citizenship, Gough & Scott (2003) also support the view that environmental citizenship involves learning and action. It should be noted, however, that Gough & Scott (2003) emphasise that the dedication to learning about the environment needs to be a lifelong commitment.

A review of the literature revealed there is a strong correlation between the definitions of “environmental citizenship” and “ecological literacy.” Capra, for example, suggests that “being ecologically literate…means understanding the basic principles of ecology and being able to embody them in the daily life of human communities” (Capra,

1999, p.2). He is careful to emphasise that “the principles of ecology can also be interpreted as the principles of community” which form an “ancient wisdom that was once common knowledge in just about every human culture around the globe” (p.2). Puk

(2002) describes “the ecologically literate person as…the responsible lifelong learner 19 who strives to improve the human condition and the environment within the context of self, human groups, the biosphere and the ecosphere” (p. 4). McClaren (1995), defines ecological literacy as “the capacity to perceive and interpret the relative health of the environment and take appropriate action to maintain, restore or improve its health”

(p.12). In this instance, the word “environment” is defined as “everything” - the natural, the cultural, the social, the political, the physical and the non-material elements of the

Earth (McClaren, 1989). Cuthbertson & Curthroys (2002) define the ecologically literate citizen as “someone who knows about, cares for and acts on behalf of the cultural and ecological integrity of their home place” (p. 227). McClaren (1995), Capra (1999), Puk’s

(2001) and Cuthbertson & Curthroys’ (2002) definitions of ecological literacy emphasise the same two primary qualities of an “ecologically literate citizen:” commitment to life- long learning and acting in a way that respects the inter-relationship between humans and the non-human world.

Despite having the same goal and similar definitions, theorists and researchers emphasise different strategies for promoting ecological literacy. Cuthbertson &

Curthroys (2002) reviewed the various strategies and concluded that some emphasise cognitive learning while others emphasise experiential learning. Although theorists focus on some learning strategies over others, there seems to be general agreement that education suitable for promoting ecological citizenship should be interdisciplinary and grounded by systems thinking. It is also generally agreed that eco-literacy education should adopt a larger sense of time/history, develop a sense of place, involve community co-operation, and use experiential learning techniques. These six key elements are not listed here in any rank order. They are described in more detail in the following section 20 and will serve to guide the forthcoming assessment of how environmental history could influence H.A. programming at DPP.

1) An Interdisciplinary Approach to Learning

Newell (2002) defines an interdisciplinary study as “a process of answering a

question, solving a problem or addressing a topic that is too broad or complex to be dealt

with adequately by a single discipline or profession” (p. 202). Environmental issues and

the promotion of environmental citizenship are both complex problems that many

researchers consider to be too complex for a single discipline to adequately, or accurately

address (Conrad & Carrier, 2000; Heinze-Fry, 1997; Hemingway, 1999; Machlis, 1996;

Russell, Bell & Fawcett, 2000; Sanger, 1997; Swinnerton, 1999). It should be emphasised

that an interdisciplinary approach to education is different than a multidisciplinary

approach. Multidisciplinary approaches to learning often include many disciplines, but do

not actively make linkages between them. In reflecting on leisure research and the need

for change, Hemingway (1999) describes the problem with being multidisciplinary in the

following paragraph:

The multiple perspectives in the field are not often in communication with one

another. They tend, instead, to be oriented toward what may be called the home

disciplines or be withdrawn into themselves. This tendency works against the

creation of research programs that move not only across several perspectives in

the field but also across several disciplines. (p. 488)

According to Hemingway (1999) a better approach to learning/research is for an

individual researcher to be what he refers to as “transdisciplinary.” A transdisciplinary 21 approach to research requires familiarity with “several fields of inquiry at once, conceptually and substantively, epistemologically and methodologically” (Hemingway,

1999, p. 488). In other words, a transdisciplinary approach requires researchers (or in this case, Heritage Presenters) to cross traditional disciplinary lines and to transcend those divisions in order to develop a clearer understanding of an issue. The end product of transdisciplinary research is not simply a chapter-by-chapter summary of the perspectives of different disciplines; it is a holistic understanding of a common theme.

For the purposes of this study Hemingway’s (1999) transdisciplinary approach to research will be synonymous with an interdisciplinary approach.

In a recent article on educational programming in the U.S. Parks, Conrad &

Carrier (2000) argue for education that “crosses the lines of history, geography, and cultural anthropology with those of forestry, wildlife biology and botany” (p.29). It is argued that crossing these lines will present a more “holistic” view of environmental issues and help people to understand their role in creating and amending those problems

(Conrad & Carrier, 2000). Other researchers express similar views. More specifically, they suggest that teaching subjects in isolation makes it impossible to understand the primary ecological message that everything is connected to everything else (McClaren,

1989; Sanger, 1997; Swinnerton, 1999).

Literature related to promoting ecological citizenship specifically emphasises the need to move beyond “natural” and “cultural” understandings of the world. This disciplinary division is little more than an academic convenience. The problem with this fabricated gap between “nature” and “culture” is that it hinders the development of 22 ecological literacy (Capra, 1999; McClaren, 1989; Tudge, 1996). Tudge (1996), explains:

In school we learn of ice ages in one set of books and of ‘history’ in another and

we fail to see how the two are connected; we fail to perceive, therefore, that

beneath the surface tremors of our lives there are much deeper and more powerful

forces at work that in the end affect us and all our fellow creatures at least as

profoundly as the events of day-to day [life]. (p.17)

Internal barriers between traditionally “natural/scientific” disciplines such as biology and traditionally “cultural” disciplines such as history have been growing over the last 150 years. Science, as Opie (1985) suggests, “is based on the idea that culture is largely irrelevant to its more ‘objective’ study of the natural world” (p.27). The “humanities” is generally based on the idea that science is less important to understanding the world than cultural studies (Worster, 2001).

One of the consequences of the fabricated division between nature and culture is the assumption that people are separate and independent from the rest of “nature.” This assumption has led to the communication of several damaging myths and is often cited as one of the core assumptions that must be changed in order to promote environmental citizenship (Alberta Parks, 2003; Capra, 1999; MPHIA, 2000; Puk, 2002; Searle, 2000;

Sanger, 1999; van Matre, 1999).

The assumption that people are separate from nature is communicated to us through many different mediums – including some H.A. programs in parks. Reich (2001) criticised the interpretive programming in Virginia’s Shenandoah National Park for promoting narratives that incorrectly suggest the landscape in the park is “natural” and 23 therefore “unaltered” by humans. Through extensive research of historical documents and critical analysis he concluded that when alterations to the landscape of Shenandoah

National Park are counted, they number in the order of thousands. There were

“thousands of people relocated from the hills, thousands of tons of earth removed for

Skyline drive, thousands of trees planted along the highway, thousands of trout added to the stream, thousands of hours spent suppressing fires, thousands of gallons of water stored and diverted” (Reich, 2001, p. 110). Despite their considerable impact on the

Park (past and present), humans are left out of the park narratives thereby giving the false impression that people are not, and have not been, a part of it. This omission is at least partially due to the assumption that parks are “natural” and that being “natural” negates human influence and involvement. The current disciplinary division between a cultural understanding of the world and a “scientific” understanding of the world perpetuates this belief.

2) Systems Thinking

In contrast with traditional scientific studies that focus on quantification and the understanding of how something is built, systems thinking focuses on finding

relationships amongst variables and mapping patterns (Aaronson, 1996; Capra, 1999).

Although science is a valuable form of inquiry, systems theorists stress that it is too

narrow in scope to understand complex environmental issues by itself (Aronson, 1996;

Capra, 1999). Rather than following “traditional forms of analysis that focus on

separating the individual pieces of what is being studied, systems thinking focuses on

how the thing being studied interacts with the other constituents of the system” (Aronson, 24

1996, p.1). The resulting conclusions that are generated by looking at a system as an interconnected web are often very different than those that are generated through isolating its smaller parts. Researchers claim that systems thinking promotes ecological citizenship by illustrating the fact that everything is connected to everything else (Capra,

1999; Puk, 2002).

3) Adopting a Larger Sense of Time and History

The promotion of ecological literacy is also enhanced through education that adopts a larger sense of time/history. Andrew (1996) suggests that an “historical perspective leads to a deeper understanding of manifestations of contemporary environmental issues and a greater understanding of changing social contexts within which that history has unfolded” (p.84). McClaren (1989) notes that the development of ecological literacy requires extending people’s capacity to think beyond the here and now because “quick fixes” of the past have turned out to be the catalyst of significant future environmental problems. Moreover, he argues that “many human beings experience genuine difficulty thinking beyond the term of their own life span. In fact, many have difficulty thinking beyond this year” (McClaren, 1989, p.13). Solutions to environmental problems will not be arrived at quickly – they require patience and an understanding of the need for extended effort over many years (McClaren, 1989, p.13).

A historical perspective not only helps people to understand environmental issues, it also helps individuals to understand their connection to the issues and the solutions – a key aspect of environmental citizenship. This idea is explained in the following comment: 25

A history of place fortifies the context and strengthens the relevance of what

students experience. If they can see themselves as part of a continuous line from

the past to the present, they will be able to visualise and value their role in the

future. In this way educators create potentially responsible citizens. (Sanger,

1996, p. 5)

The relationship between understanding the history of one’s place and the development of responsible citizenship is also the cornerstone of Banff’s Heritage Tourism Strategy.

More specifically, Sandford (2001), suggests that “cultural history [can be used] as a vehicle for understanding how we got to the environmental situation we presently face”

(p.21). The inclusion and emphasis on using cultural history to understand environmental problems is still relatively unconventional in modern park management plans. In the past, science (i.e. “hard science”) has dominated management of recreation resources such as parks (Machlis, 1996; Stankey, McCool, Clark & Brown, 1999).

In addition to contributing to the creation of ecological literacy by helping people visualise their historical connection to environmental issues, the adoption of a historical perspective is also linked to the appreciation of both cultural and biological diversity. As explained in the following comment:

The aim of helping children understand the historical communities of which they

are a part is to validate diversity and slow if not reverse the dissemination of a

modern mono-culture that, because of its ephemeral and non-local nature, has

little power to win the allegiance of people who consume it, and little power to

win a collective identity or commitment. (Smith cited by Sanger, 1996, p. 5) 26

Appreciating and validating the importance of diversity in society has many significant connections with the promotion of environmental citizenship (Capra, 1999).

4) Sense of Place

The concept of sense of place is frequently discussed as an integral aspect of

ecological literacy (Capra, 1999; Sandford, 2001; Sanger, 1996). Sanger (1996) defines

sense of place as “an experientially based intimacy with the natural processes, community, and history of one’s place” (p.4). He suggests that the successful development of sense of place is ultimately the end product of ecological literacy. David

Orr explains the connection between sense of place and eco-literacy in a different way.

He suggests that “places are laboratories of diversity and complexity, mixing social functions and natural processes…the study of place enables us to widen our focus to examine the interrelationships between disciplines and to lengthen our perception of time” (cited in Capra, 1999, p4). Both of the above descriptions emphasise that the

development of sense of place is linked to understanding natural processes and the

interconnectedness of nature, culture and history.

In the Mountain National Parks (e.g. Banff and Jasper), Sandford’s (2001)

Heritage Tourism Strategy is grounded in the idea that the development of sense of place

will bring with it an emotional attachment to place that will motivate visitors to become

environmentally responsible citizens. He explains that “sense of place is a mindset

change, a paradigm shift, a transcendence of thought…epiphany…it is the realisation that

we are not the centre of everything, that all nature is holy too” (Sandford, 2002, p.22).

Its development requires the appreciation of unique geography, history and the 27 application of history’s lessons to contemporary meaning (Sandford, 2001; Sandford,

2002). Again, like Orr’s comment regarding sense of place, Sandford’s position echoes the key concepts related to eco-literacy previously discussed. Namely, that the development of ecological literacy requires an understanding of history, an interdisciplinary understanding of history, and recognition hat we are part of, rather than separate from, nature.

The concept of sense of place is a “field of inquiry” unto itself and a complete review of all related literature is beyond the scope of this study. It is mentioned here to note that it is recognised as a significant and integral aspect of ecological literacy. As described previously, because ecological literacy features so prominently in agency objectives, theories associated with its development are integral for understanding how environmental history could influence heritage appreciation at DPP.

5) Community Co-operation

Community co-operation is emphasised in modern park management plans as a

necessary component of preserving ecological integrity. Parks Canada (2003) makes this

point clearly in the following paragraph:

Parks Canada cannot do it alone. Canadians value these special places and the

more they know about them and appreciate their significance, the more likely they

will be to support the work required to assure their protection. By raising public

awareness about these special places, Parks Canada can help to ensure that

visitors, stakeholders and the general public become our ambassadors and our

partners in stewardship. (Parks Canada, 2003, p.2) 28

The above paragraph not only emphasises the need for community co-operation, but also stresses the need for raising public awareness about parks and the importance of people committing to stewardship. This idea that parks need “ambassadors” and community partners is also emphasised in Alberta Parks’ Key Messages Framework. Here it is noted that the parks and protected areas network is a “public trust” and that the protection of this trust is a “shared responsibility [between] the public, park visitors, staff, volunteers and private and non-profit sectors” (Alberta Parks, 2003, p.7). Alberta Parks, like Parks

Canada, is cognoscente of the fact that the protection of parks and protected areas will ultimately require community effort.

According to some theories, community co-operation such as that described by

Parks Canada and Alberta Parks will aid in the promotion of ecological citizenship

(Capra, 1999; McClaren, 1989). Capra (1999) notes that being ecologically literate involves a shift from an emphasis on the individual to an emphasis on community. His definition of community includes not just the “human community,” but also the community of the Earth (Capra, 1999). In other words, Capra believes that everyone in a community is linked to everyone else; thus leading to the observation that teaching is a task shared by all community members. The result of this shared learning environment is a “cyclical exchange of information…[wherein] everyone in the system is both a teacher and a learner” (Capra, 1999, p. 2). The learning community is said to promote lifelong learning by everyone. As explained earlier, a personal commitment to learning is a key component of an ecologically literate citizen. Alberta Parks has yet to be successful in establishing a learning community of this magnitude.

29

6) Experiential Learning

Experiential learning is frequently noted as an integral aspect of the development of ecological citizenship (Capra, 1999; McClaren, 1989; Sanger, 1996; Swinnerton, 1999;

Rosenzwieg-Kliewer, 2001; van Matre, 1999). Golley (1998) suggests “experience is the trigger for environmental literacy. It ignites curiosity and tests the muscles. It teaches us that we live in a world that is not of human making, that does not play by human rules”

(p. x). The success and need for experiential learning is supported by recent research

related to how people learn. Citing Jean Piaget, Rudolf Steiner and Maria Montessori,

Capra (1999) explains that “a rich, multi-sensory learning environment – the shapes,

textures, the colours, smells and sounds of the real world – is essential for the full

cognitive and emotional development of the child” (p. 8). Since experiential education

involves interactions with the communities beyond classroom walls, it has the potential to

immerse individuals in an experience that is an active, multi-sensory, multi-dimensional

learning process (Capra, 1999; Cuthbertson & Curthroys, 2002; Sanger, 1996).

Some of the H.A. programs offered at DPP are already experientially based. The

Fossil Safari, for example, is a very short hike (one kilometre or less) that provides

visitors with the opportunity to search for microfossils. After a brief introduction, fossil

handbooks are distributed to visitors and the interpreter travels randomly from group to

group helping with fossil identification. It is a multi-sensory experiential opportunity

where the interpreter plays the role as facilitator rather than presenter. Out of the six

components that theorists feel are needed to develop ecological citizenship, the provision

of experiential learning opportunities is the one most evident in current H.A.

programming at DPP. 30

Environmental History

a) Overview

In 1985, John Opie remarked, “it is extraordinary that the obvious links between

environmental history and historic preservation have not…been systematically

developed…the emerging importance of public or applied history could become an outlet

for environmental advocacy in an appropriate historical perspective” (p. 32). Despite

perceived potential, active integration of environmental history and Heritage Presentation

has not occurred to any significant degree within parks (Louter, 2003; Stine, 2002).

Stewart (1998) wrote a comprehensive profile of the field of environmental

history and concluded that, in the last decade, it has become “a recognised field with a

strong core of both individual and institutional support” (p. 351). Much of the growth in

this field can be attributed to the fact that the information it provides is useful (Louter,

2003; Stewart, 1998; Stine, 2002). The utility of environmental history is grounded in its

ability to “teach and describe the history of the role and place of nature in human life,

[and] the history of all the interactions that societies have had with the non-human past,

in their environs” (Stewart, 1998, p. 352). Few other fields can offer such a thorough

understanding of the inter-relationship between humans and nature (Stewart, 1998; Stine,

2002).

A review of environmental history literature revealed that there are four common

characteristics of environmental history narratives:

a) They adopt a flexible ecological foundation that reflects a wider perspective of time.

This wider perspective makes it easier to understand the present and more likely that 31

we may avoid “repeating the mistakes of the past” (Hughes, 2001; Louter, 2003;

Tudge, 1996). b) They adopt an interdisciplinary approach to understanding how humans have

influenced nature and how nature has influence humans throughout time (Stewart,

1998; Hughes, 2001; Worster, 1988) c) They acknowledge and challenge “culture-specific” definitions of wilderness and

nature on the basis that these cultural ideals need to be addressed to understand the

inter-relationship between people and nature. They do not consider culture and

nature as “separate entities” or separate fields of inquiry (Cronon, 1996a; Cronon,

1996b; Dunlap, 1996; Pyne, 1997; Stine, 1998; Tudge, 1996). d) They communicate their messages in narrative form and view narrative form as one

of the most effective ways to help people to learn and understand (Cronon, 1992;

Hughes, 1995; Louter, 1998).

It should be emphasised here that environmental history narratives are considerably different from those of scientists and traditional historians. This fact is exemplified through a comparison of two books. Both books were published in 1979, and they were both written about the same topic - the drought on the American plains in the 1930’s: The Dust Bowl, written by Paul Bonnifield, a historian, and Dust Bowl, written by Donald Worster, an environmental historian.

According to Bonnifield, the disaster of the 1930s was a failure of nature. The rains stopped and Bonnifield argues that human ingenuity and hard work is what “saved the west” (Cronon, 1992). To Worster, the Dust Bowl the direct result of humanity’s failure to understand and accommodate themselves to nature (Cronon, 1992, p.1348). Worster’s 32 argument is partially based on climatology data that is used to explain the western plains are a semi-arid region with a cyclical drought climate. He suggests that the Dust Bowl was the combined result of the natural drought cycle and inappropriate human action. It was relieved by the same cycle of nature that stopped the rains – not by human ingenuity and hard work as Bonnifield’s story suggests. Worster’s story stresses the inter- relationship between people and nature and the need to understand and respect that inter- relationship (Cronon, 1992; Worster, 1979).

Above all else, the Worster-Bonnifield example illustrates that environmental history is adept at understanding and communicating the inter-relationship between nature and culture. Therefore, it has the potential to provide the bridge needed by park interpreters to span the gap between a scientific understanding of nature and a purely cultural understanding of history.

b) Environmental History and Parks

Worster’s interpretation of the Dust Bowl is typical of other environmental history narratives that weave scientific and cultural knowledge together to revise our current understanding of history and our place within it. Among other things, environmental history is interdisciplinary and it discusses the interrelationship of humans and nature from a historical perspective. There are clearly parallels between environmental history and some of the components of ecological literacy that were discussed previously.

Therefore, it would seem that, at least on some level, environmental history and park

interpretation would be a “natural fit”. Not all researchers agree, however. 33

Mark (1996), a historian with the U.S. National Park Service, claims environmental history should not be incorporated into parks. His argument is largely grounded on his critique of ecology. He states that “ecology is a fractured discipline…[that] has turned out to be a swamp for environmental historians” (Mark,

1996, p.2). The “fracture” that Mark (1996) is referring to is the recent rift in ecological science that occurred in the mid-1990’s. At the present time, there are ecologists who believe that there are predictable systems in nature and there are others who argue nature is chaotic (Hughes, 1995; Mark, 1996). Mark suggests this rift makes it impossible for historians to interpret the social and economic effects of ecological changes. As a result, he suggests environmental history is fundamentally flawed and should not be used in parks.

While it may be true that ecology could be considered a “fractured” discipline, it is not so much so that its credibility has been completely undermined. Moreover, Mark

(1996) ignores the fact that parks have already adopted ecology as a theoretical foundation for management. Ecologists and park managers now accept that the system of nature is one of constant change.

In the management plan for Banff National Park, it is explained that National

Parks “are part of a larger, dynamic ecosystem that has continually changed through time” (Parks Canada, 1997, p.7). Similarly, in Alberta Parks it is recognised that

“principles from the emerging field of Conservation Biology (ecosystem management, adaptive management, ecological integrity and environmental sustainability) are the foundation to the management of protected areas” (Alberta Parks, 2003, p. 5).

Fragmented or not, ecology has been accepted as a valuable tool by park managers who 34 are challenged with the mandate of preserving ecological integrity. The use of ecology by environmental historians would therefore seem to be a good argument for, rather than against, its inclusion in the park system.

Worster (2001) has written specifically about the role environmental history could play in Grand Canyon National Park. The official story of the Canyon (i.e. that told by the Park Service) focuses exclusively on geological and evolutionary science. The scientific story describes the creatures fossilised in the rocks and reconstructs a world that is much older than humans. An advantage of the scientific story is that it stresses the immensity of planetary life. According to Worster (2001), a good environmental history of the Grand Canyon would “put us in that complicated situation where the facts of nature and meanings that humans attach to nature come together – interact, intermingle, conflict, contest and influence one another” (p.1). Moreover, an environmental history of the Canyon would tell a story that illustrates the “transience of what we humans have accomplished,” by placing human society in the context of the larger story of the planet

(Worster, 2001, p.8).

Worster (2001) is not the only environmental historian to suggest that narratives should illustrate the connection between geological science and culture. Tudge (1996) explains that “human beings have in the end been shaped by the world itself. Unless this planet had behaved in particular ways at a particular time in the history of our own lineage, we would not have come into being” (p.25). Following Tudge’s (1996) line of reasoning, environmental history would write a narrative for the Grand Canyon that would remind people that “human beings should never make the mistake of believing that their destiny is in their own hands or that any success they achieve is gained simply 35 through their own efforts” (p. 23). Although Worster (2001) explains how environmental history would meld cultural and scientific knowledge to tell the story of the Grand

Canyon, he does not actually re-write the story. Therefore, his discussion remains entirely theoretical. There are, however, others who have written environmental histories of parks.

Reich (2001) researched the environmental history of Shenandoah National Park.

His version of the park narrative is considerably different than the one currently communicated to the public through interpretive displays and signs. He suggests the official story of Shenandoah was one of “a wilderness lost to human exploitation and then restored by natural processes” (p. 95). In the official story, the message visitors receive is that human influences on the natural landscape stopped once the park was established.

Reich’s (2001) environmental history of Shenandoah reveals that human intervention and management of the landscape is very pronounced throughout the history of the park. The landscape that visitors see in Shenandoah is ultimately a product of human intervention and Park managers’ visions of what a “natural” landscape should look like. Reich’s

(2001) narrative places people back in nature and acknowledges their inter-relationship.

In the United States, additional environmental histories are currently being written for San Juan Island National Historic Park, the Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National

Historic Site and Point Reyes National Seashore (Louter, personal communication

January 20th 2003). Although fewer environmental histories have been written of

Canadian parks, an environmental history based on the Grasslands National Park area in

Saskatchewan was written by Potyondi (1995). In addition, an environmental history of

Banff will be published in 2004 (Sandford, personal communication, July 3, 2003). 36

Much of the environmental history research being conducted in the U.S. is related to park management not heritage presentation. In a paper presented at the 2003 George

Wright Society Conference in San Diego, Louter (2003) explained that the idea of integrating environmental history and park management occurred to him on a drive through Point Reyes National Seashore with the park’s cultural resource manager. In

Point Reyes, on-going ranching makes the blurred line between “wild nature” and

“modified nature” obvious. New managers at the park were trying to understand how people had affected the landscape at Point Reyes and why. When Louter (2003) heard about the new managers’ challenge, he suggested Point Reyes would be the perfect park for an environmental history.

What hastened the integration of environmental history and park management in the U.S. was the establishment of a partnership between academic researchers, students and the park. Students in a seminar course at Stanford have researched and written environmental histories related to a variety of topics relevant to Point Reyes. In addition to work by students, Louter (2003) has secured funding to write three environmental histories of other parks “to ‘show’ or ‘demonstrate’ how we can apply this kind of study to management issues within parks” (p.4).

In his paper, Louter (2003) emphasises that environmental history is not new but it has “rarely been applied to questions of park management” (Louter, 2003, p. 5). He

(2003) explains that “the goal of environmental history is to enrich our understanding of past events in a national park, reinterpret the history of that park (by adding complexity), or revise that history altogether” (Louter, 2003, p. 5). It is suggested that one of the most powerful aspects of environmental history is its use of narrative. Louter (2003) explains: 37

Understanding human connections to the natural world and their ecological

consequences within the framework of a story – with a beginning, middle and end

– is as powerful as it is understated. People respond to this. It doesn’t mean the

narrative has to be reductive or simplistic, but the gift of historians lies in their

ability to provide perspective and context, to show change over time, to tell a

story. (p. 6)

The above comment about the power of narrative is understood well in modern literature on environmental education and park interpretation (Alberta Parks, 2003; Beck & Cable,

1995; MPHIA, 2001). Workshops offered to interpreters often include sessions on storytelling and the same “beginning, middle and end” framework is used to organise hikes, bus tours and evening shows at DPP (DPP, 2003b).

Louter (2003) also stresses that environmental history is relevant to park management because it helps managers to gain a deeper understanding of the ecosystems under their care and the fact that landscapes are historical creations. He suggests that scientific studies and environmental histories are complementary. More specifically, he states that instead of “looking at two points in time and assuming that what took place between them was the reason for change”, as ecologists tend to, environmental historians can reveal that often what has occurred before and after those points in time has influenced the change (Louter, 2003, p.7). The end product of such co-operation between historians and ecologists represent more accurate insights into the condition of park resources. These insights can improve the ability of park managers to inventory and monitor ecological integrity. 38

The interdisciplinary nature of environmental history is another characteristic that makes it relevant to park management. Louter (2003) specifically stresses the need to integrate “natural” and “cultural” actions to understand changes in ecosystems. He argues that the interdisciplinary nature of environmental history “supports a more holistic approach to resource management – one that considers cultural and natural resources as closely related” (p. 7).

According to Louter (2003) environmental history could also benefit sites that focus primarily on cultural history. He uses Gettysburg as an example and suggests that

park interpreters could enhance more conventional histories of the conflict with

discussions about the way military planners viewed the terrain; the role of

resources (food, fuel, and the like); the affect of weather and climate and disease;

the use of animals and animal power; and vegetation- especially forests. (Louter,

2003, p.8)

The above comment once again stresses the fact that humans and nature are inter-related.

By incorporating this message into cultural history sites, the message that we are not, and never have been separate from nature, will become abundantly clear.

Louter’s argument for the integration of environmental history and park management has a couple of key points: First, it is suggested that environmental history can benefit park management by offering a wider perspective of time that will help managers understand ecological change. Second, it is also suggested that the interdisciplinary nature of environmental histories provides a more holistic understanding of park-related issues and that the use of narrative to communicate messages is extremely 39 effective. These points mirror some of the common characteristics of ecological citizenship that were highlighted previously.

Summary and Discussion of Literature

The integration of environmental history with Heritage Presentation in Parks is a relatively new field of inquiry. Consequently, there is minimal literature directly related to this topic of study. To provide a foundation to address the research question of this study, a broad spectrum of literature related to park management, heritage appreciation and environmental history was reviewed.

To understand how environmental history could influence Heritage Appreciation

Programming in DPP, it was necessary to first understand both the site-level and agency- level mandates and objectives because these objectives govern and describe what messages are to be communicated to park visitors. Current management-related literature revealed that H.A. within DPP and other Alberta Parks has a dual objective. H.A. programming is designed to provide opportunities for the public to enjoy, understand and appreciate their natural heritage. It also aims to encourage visitors to understand their relationship to the natural world and, subsequently, that their health and well being are dependent on the health of the environment. The second portion of the mandate emphasises the promotion of ecological citizenship.

The dual objective of H.A. programming in Alberta Parks and the emphasis on promoting ecological citizenship is mirrored in the management literature of Parks

Canada and the NPS (NPS, 2001; Parks Canada, 2003). One of the reasons park plans emphasise the promotion of ecological citizenship is the recognition that other park 40 mandates, such as the preservation of ecological integrity, cannot be achieved without significant changes in human activities outside park boundaries.

In Alberta Parks such as DPP, the commitment to promoting environmental citizenship and managing to protect ecological integrity is relatively new. A review of site-level objectives at DPP revealed they are not related to the agency objective of promoting ecological citizenship. It is likely that this inconsistency between site and agency-level objectives is a product of recent changes at the agency level and the absence of parallel changes at the site level.

Historically, and to a great extent today, park interpretation is recognised as an important management tool that adds value to visitor experiences and ideally develops support for agency goals (Beck & Cable, 1998; Butler, 1980; Butler & Hvenegaard,

2002; Wolf, 1997). Although there is evidence that programming has been a successful management tool in the past, it has been suggested that the promotion of ecological citizenship in parks requires changing heritage presentation (Conrad & Carrier, 1996;

Searle, 2000).

Future H.A. programming should be interdisciplinary and grounded by systems thinking. It should also adopt a “larger” sense of time/history, develop a sense of place, involve community co-operation, and use experiential learning techniques. A review of these elements in comparison with park-related literature revealed that ideas such as the development of sense of place and community co-operation are already recognised as being important to parks and the accomplishment of their mandates (MPHIA, 2001;

Sandford, 2001). A review of program scripts also reveals that experiential learning techniques are currently used in some of DPP’s H.A. programs. 41

Although literature specifically dedicated to both environmental history and park interpretation is limited, the literature that does exist reveals there is some controversy over whether environmental history should be incorporated into park management. One researcher suggests that the ecological foundation of environmental history makes it inappropriate for parks (Mark, 1996). Other researchers make the opposite claim - that there is potential for environmental history to be a positive addition to parks (Louter,

2003; Stine, 2002; Worster, 2001). According to Louter (2003) recent integration of environmental and park management in the United States has been met with considerable success.

A review of the literature relating to park interpretation and environmental history revealed another interesting connection - environmental historians and park educators both use narratives to communicate their ideas, values and information (Cable & Beck,

1998; Cronon, 1992; Hughes, 2001; Stewart, 1998). Cronon (1992) explains that

“narratives remain our chief moral compass in the world. Because we use them to motivate and explain our actions, the stories we tell change the way we act in the world”

(Cronon, 1992, p.1375). Narratives are viewed by environmental historians and park interpreters in the same light: they are powerful ways, not only to help people understand information, but to change their thinking and actions (Cable & Beck, 1998; Cronon

1992). This is further evidence of the existence of fertile ground for co-operation between environmental historians and park managers.

Research is needed to assess how environmental history could influence heritage appreciation. Such research will not only reveal the applicability of environmental history to parks, it may also uncover some “deeply held values” that are helping and/or hindering 42 parks such as DPP from achieving its mandate to promote the development of environmental citizenship. Environmental history could provide the bridge between science and culture that park researchers suggest is needed to enrich and improve park education. It could also help to uncover deeply held values that perpetuate environmental problems that ultimately become management problems in parks (Louter, 2002; Reich,

2002; Stine, 2002; Worster, 2001). 43

Chapter III

Methodology & Methods

The purpose of this study was to assess how environmental history could influence Heritage Appreciation (H.A.) in Dinosaur Provincial Park (DPP). The research

approach for this study combined interpretative and critical paradigms. A discussion of the relationship between the proposed research and the interpretative and critical

paradigms will reveal why this methodology was appropriate.

The Interpretive Paradigm

The interpretive research paradigm assumes that knowledge is socially

constructed (Neuman, 2000). According to Creswell (2003), the “goal of interpretative

research is to rely as much as possible on the participants’ views of the situation being

studied” (p. 8). Researchers in leisure and recreation studies suggest that the interpretive

model of social inquiry is not only more flexible than positivist research models, it is also

more suited to gaining insight into the individually constructed meanings of social

phenomenon (Samdahl, 1999; Veal, 1997).

To understand how environmental history could influence heritage appreciation, I

felt it was first necessary to gain an understanding of the individually constructed

meanings and understandings of current H.A. programming at DPP. When combined

with participant-centred knowledge of the integration of environmental history and parks,

this understanding informed and addressed the research question. The assumption that

the knowledge necessary to answer the research question is contained within the

pluralistic lives and experiences of research participants, precluded the use of positivist 44 paradigms (Creswell, 2003; Neuman, 2000). Moreover, it necessitated grounding the study in the interpretive paradigm and using the paradigm’s associated research methods.

The use of such research methods provided the descriptive data needed to address the research question.

The Critical Paradigm

While the interpretative paradigm was a suitable methodology to frame this qualitative inquiry, it is important to note that my research also contained elements of the critical paradigm since, by definition, critical research seeks to stimulate social change to improve the human condition (Creswell, 2003; Neuman, 2000). As explained in the literature review, parks at both the provincial and federal level are grounded in a philosophy that suggests the existence of parks and communication of park messages (i.e.

Heritage Appreciation) is important to societal and environmental health. My research sought to improve the ability of H.A. programming to promote ecological literacy by asking experts in the fields of environmental history, park interpretation and park management to critically assess current H.A. programming in DPP.

Both environmental historians and park educators are dedicated to promoting social change (Alberta Parks, 2002; MPHIA, 2001; Parks Canada, 2001; Tudge, 1996;

Worster, 1988). In assessing how environmental history could influence heritage

appreciation, the proposed research may serve to assist both professions to promote

ecological literacy thereby improving our quality of life.

Another aspect of the critical paradigm that is reflected in this research study is the purposeful examination of shared assumptions of knowledge. Critical researchers 45 believe that knowledge is never neutral. Moreover, they believe that practical knowledge can enlighten individuals in their everyday lives (Hemmingway, 1999; Neuman, 2000).

Environmental history is a practical form of knowledge and, therefore, has the potential to be another “arrow” for the park interpreter’s quiver. My research was designed to develop an understanding of how that arrow could be used to help interpreters enhance visitor appreciation of natural and cultural heritage. If successful, that arrow could extend into communities via park visitors and begin to impact society as a whole.

Summary

The underlying assumptions and beliefs associated with this research study were grounded in the theoretical foundations of two research paradigms: interpretative and critical. Such a combination did not complicate the method I chose because critical and interpretative researchers do not have any conflicting assumptions or world-views. In fact, both the critical and interpretative paradigms agree that realities are subjective, that the researcher and study members are interconnected and that it is important for researchers to disclose their biases and values (Creswell, 2003; Hemingway, 1999;

Neuman, 2000; Samdahl, 1999).

Methods

The setting for this research study was Dinosaur Provincial Park – a World

Heritage Site and Provincial Park in Alberta, Canada. The purpose of this study was to assess how environmental history could influence Heritage Appreciation in the park. Data 46 was collected in July, August and September of 2003 while I was employed as Heritage

Appreciation Team Supervisor at DPP.

The primary research method utilised for this study was in-depth interviews.

Interviews were an important means of data collection because they allowed participants to individually and independently assess the current state of H.A. programming in DPP.

Interviews were also conducive to creating a comfortable atmosphere where participants could voice their opinions on what changes are needed at the Park and to share insight concerning potential obstacles to those changes. The interviews provided the flexibility and anonymity required to gather detailed data that was needed to assess how environmental history could influence heritage appreciation in DPP (Kvale, 1996).

Participant Profiles/Sampling

Addressing the research question of this study required the participation of individuals with expertise in several different fields. Securing the involvement of these individuals involved a combination of purposive and snowball sampling procedures.

Those familiar with the application of purposive and snowball sampling techniques recognise both are an appropriate method to reach difficult, specialised populations that are part of an interconnected network (Arksey & Knight, 1999; Neuman, 2000). In consideration of the fact that park managers, environmental historians and park interpreters are all part of specialised, difficult to reach, interconnected networks, a blend of purposive and snowball sampling techniques was suitable for this research study. I made use of professional contacts to gain access to individuals directly involved in Park management, H.A. programming at DPP, and those individuals who are familiar with the 47 application of environmental history in parks. While conducting interviews and working in the field, participants provided leads to find other potential interviewees who could provide insights pertinent to this applied research study.

In total, 14 individuals were interviewed, a size is appropriate for in-depth interviews in such a limited and specific population (Arksey & Knight, 1999; Neuman,

2000). Table 2 lists the 14 interviewees and their respective areas of specialisation. To protect the anonymity of these individuals, pseudonyms were assigned and their specific professional titles omitted.

It should be noted that pseudonyms were assigned in such a way to make it easier for me to differentiate between individuals involved in each specialisation (park management, environmental history and heritage presentation) when I was analysing data. At Dinosaur Provincial Park, the park radios are named after Flintstones characters.

I thought that assigning park managers pseudonyms from the Flintstones (Barney, Dino,

Mr. Slate, etc.) would be a good way to keep comments from individuals in that group separate from comments made by environmental historians and managers. To make it easier to distinguish between the retired manager’s comments and those made by active managers, the retired manager was named “Winnie”. In keeping with the cartoon theme, environmental historians were assigned pseudonyms of famous bears (Yogi and

Smokey). The theme chosen to organise the pseudonyms of heritage presenters was

“names of seniors.” One of the interpreters interviewed requested the pseudonym

“Mabel” and that’s how that theme began.

Prior to the completion of this research study, each research participant was e- mailed a copy of the results chapter with their assigned pseudonym. They were informed 48 of why these pseudonyms were chosen and were also given the opportunity to request that their pseudonym be changed. None of the research participants requested changes.

Table 2: Participants and their Specialisations

Participant Specialisation Participant Specialisation Mr. Slate Park Management Norm Heritage Presentation Dino Park Management Mabel Heritage Presentation Barney Park Management Nettie Heritage Presentation Bam Bam Park Management Hariet Heritage Presentation Winnie Park Management Edna Heritage Presentation Smokey the Bear Environmental Hank Heritage Presentation History & Parks Yogi Bear Environmental Gertrude Heritage Presentation History & Parks

It should be noted that the individuals who specialised in park management were

representative of three different levels of management. Managers involved at site,

regional, and provincial levels were interviewed. Three of the five managers also had

previous experience as park interpreters. All of the Heritage Presenters who were

interviewed were actively working in the field at the time of the interview. Six of the

seven were either working as Heritage Presenters at DPP when they were interviewed, or

had worked there in 2002. The seventh had extensive experience with Heritage

Presentation in another park and had participated in H.A. programming at DPP several

times.

Participants actively involved in H.A. programming either at the field or

management level were selected for this study because they had the depth of local

knowledge required to understand current programming content and issues. Managers

specifically involved in contributing to policy making and/or delivery were chosen

because they were known to play a significant role in deciding how much emphasis is 49 given to various messages (i.e. appreciation of natural and cultural heritage) in the parks system. This perspective was very important for this research study as it dealt extensively with government policies and mandates.

The two participants with expertise in environmental history were interviewed because of their combined knowledge of environmental history and parks. To avoid the discrepancies and inconsistencies associated with supposed “environmental history writings”, the written work of those experts who were involved in this study was reviewed to ensure it met the criteria for environmental history narratives as outlined in the literature review. As stated earlier, the pool of candidates who have experience with the application of environmental history in parks is extremely small. Participant selection was influenced by this fact.

As an employee of Alberta Parks in the summers of 2002 and 2003, I had developed the necessary personal contacts and trust to gain access to the requisite groups of people involved in H.A. at DPP and to conduct the interviews. As the designer of the interview schedule I also had a greater understanding of how to direct the discussion and when to probe for more depth, which is important in interviews (Kvale, 1996). Stewart

& Shamdasani (1990) note that a good interviewer must also be “up-to-date and familiar with the topic of discussion [and be] capable of determining the appropriate depth of probing” (p. 82). Previous field experience as a park interpreter combined with a working knowledge of environmental history and an extensive understanding of pertinent literature provided me with the experience and knowledge required to conduct quality in- depth interviews (Kvale, 1996, p. 148). 50

Collection of Data: In-Depth Interviews

The information required to address the research objectives was obtained through in-depth interviews. This form of data collection provided respondents with the opportunity to provide detailed answers and to qualify and clarify their responses. It also permitted participants to elaborate on their thoughts and for the interviewer to probe for clarification or more detail (Kvale, 1996; Neuman, 2000). The use of in-depth interviews also allowed me to adjust the tone and vocabulary of the interview questions to coincide with participant norms and language uses (Kvale, 1996; Holstein & Gubruim, 1995;

Neuman, 2000).

Interviews were conducted in various locations in order to suit the needs of individual research participants. Locations ranged from restaurants and boardrooms to decks and lawns. Ensuring participants felt comfortable during the interview process was important as the comfort level of participants is known to influence the reliability of responses (Kvale, 1996; Mishler, 1991).

The interviews followed a semi-structured list of questions (see Appendix E).

The order in which questions were asked remained flexible so I could follow the flow of participant narratives. Ensuring there was flexibility in the order and content of the interview schedule allowed both the interviewer and the interviewee to be actively engaged in the “developing plot” of the interview (Kvale, 1996; Holstein & Gubrium,

1995).

Interviews were recorded on audiocassette to ensure complete responses to questions were captured and detailed data was gathered (Kvale, 1996; Mishler, 1991). In 51 some instances, when additional information was provided after the recorder was turned off, I made written notes to complement the data recorded on audiotape.

Analysis of Data

Data from the fourteen interviews was transcribed verbatim. Following transcription of the interviews, I used the procedure for analysing and interpreting qualitative data outlined by Tesch (1990) as a guideline for analysis. In general, the seven steps used to analyze interview data were:

1) The transcripts were read from start to finish

2) The transcripts were re-read for underlying meanings

3) A list of primary topics was developed

4) The topics were abbreviated and appropriate segments of text coded

5) The topics were turned into meaningful themes that emerged from reading

6) A preliminary analysis was performed

7) Necessary data was re-coded (Tesch, 1990).

It should be noted that while the above seven steps guided the data analysis for this study, there were some minor deviations. As noted by Wolcott (1995), the analysis of data is more of a dialectic process than it is a linear one. A more specific explanation of the analysis procedures used for this research study is provided in the following paragraphs.

Following transcription of the interviews, transcripts were re-read and notes related to emerging themes or material in the literature review were made in my research journal. The transcripts were then converted into plain text format so they could be 52 downloaded into Atlas T.I. - a computer software tool used for qualitative data analysis.

Using the Atlas program, the transcripts were re-read a third time and a first draft of codes was made. The first draft of codes was a preliminary conceptualisation of data into analysable units. This technique is consistent with the coding procedure outlined by

Coffee & Atkinson (1996).

Following the initial assignment of codes, synonymous codes were merged. This second draft of coding also involved grouping like-codes into family units. Family units are broader themes that link related, but more specifically coded, data. For example, specific codes such as: “promotion of ecological literacy,” “informative recreation” and

“inspiration/help visitors to see things differently” were all grouped under the family

“Perceived purpose of Heritage Appreciation”. This process mirrors step five of Tesch’s

(1990) data analysis.

The third draft of coding involved re-visiting and reflecting further on the goals and objectives of the research study and re-assessing the assigned codes and families as needed. This is consistent with Wolcott’s (1995) description of “data refinement”. The families and codes relevant to the purpose and objectives of this research study were exported into tables created in Microsoft Word. This was done so I could more clearly visualise the data and conceptualise how it contributed to an assessment of how environmental history could influence H.A. in DPP.

Following these three code drafts, a one-page table was constructed in order to summarise the data into two broad categories with several themes and sub-themes.

Quotations supporting these themes and sub-themes were compiled from the Atlas T.I. data files and organised accordingly. 53

In summary, assessing how environmental history could influence H.A. at DPP, involved more than simply coding and organising data. A significant part of this research study involved a critical analysis of participant responses, reflections and perceptions in comparison with literature pertaining to park mandates, heritage appreciation programming and environmental history. The analysis of data followed an organised and thorough process that was flexible enough to allow the dialectic nature of the data to emerge (Tesch, 1990; Wolcott, 1995). This critical analysis formed the basis of the discussion chapter.

Researcher Biases

A “full and candid disclosure” of my biases as a researcher is required to enhance the trustworthiness of this study (Neuman, 2000). I have been involved with and/or have worked in fields related to outdoor recreation, parks and tourism for many years. More specifically, I have worked as an interpreter in Alberta’s National and Provincial Parks for four “seasons”. I spent the summers of 2002 and 2003 working at Dinosaur

Provincial Park as an interpreter and then as as Heritage Appreciation Team Supervisor at the Park.

Working at DPP provided me with in-depth field knowledge of the H.A. programming and a rare “insider’s” look at the Park and its highly praised programs. As a field researcher and full-time employee, it was sometimes challenging to stay focused on my research study during the summer. To help keep me focused on my research and cognisant of my goals and objectives, I kept a field journal to record my experiences and provide me with a forum to reflect upon my biases. 54

My time working in H.A. with Alberta Parks, and in various private agencies in the National Parks, provided me with some important and useful contacts with individuals whose insights greatly enhanced the depth of this study. Being so close to

DPP and many of the individuals interviewed has provided me with strong opinions and feelings about this research. It is my hope that this research will serve to improve upon the popular H.A. programming at DPP.

Trustworthiness

As with other qualitative research studies, this study cannot be judged solely on its ability to be replicated. A similar study could be set up to assess how environmental history could influence Heritage Appreciation in Dinosaur Park, but results would likely vary. The reason for a possible variation would be that opinions, values and ideas of individuals and groups change over time - they are context dependent (Neuman, 2000;

Samdahl, 1999). The results of this study in particular are the product of an interactive process between the research participants and myself and are thus unlikely to be replicable.

Efforts were made to ensure that the research was authentic. The authenticity of this research study was strengthened in several ways. First, a detailed description of how the project was conducted and a candid disclosure of my actions assumptions as a researcher were provided (Neuman, 2000). This was done so that others can evaluate the results and judge the authenticity of this study for themselves. Second, participants were mailed electronic copies of their interview transcript and a copy of the results chapter.

This was done so that participants were given the opportunity to provide feedback and 55 comments regarding their interview and my interpretation and presentation of their narratives. In following these procedures, the authenticity and trustworthiness of the analysis is increased (Kirby & McKenna, 1989; Neuman, 2000).

Ethical Considerations

The Research Ethics Board at Acadia University has established ethical guidelines for researchers to follow. These guidelines were adhered to throughout this research project. Prior to conducting the research, I defended the proposal and the Research

Ethics Board approved my research study. Research participants read and signed an informed consent form that explained the voluntary nature of the study and its potential risks and benefits (see Appendix F). These forms were signed prior to starting the interview. At that time, I also responded to any questions or concerns expressed by the research participants. 56

Chapter IV

Results

Introduction and Purpose of Study

The setting for this study was Dinosaur Provincial Park/World Heritage Site.

Dinosaur Provincial Park (DPP) is part of Alberta’s network of parks and protected areas

and is located near the town of Patricia. As a World Heritage Site, DPP is commonly considered a “flagship park” of the network and it offers a diverse and highly praised

Heritage Appreciation (H.A.) programming opportunities to the public. The purpose of this study was to assess how environmental history could influence Heritage

Appreciation programming in Dinosaur Provincial Park. It has been guided by the following objectives:

1) To assess the current state of Heritage Appreciation (H.A) programming at DPP.

2) To assess the ability of current programming to meet agency and site-level

objectives and mandates.

3) To describe how the adoption of an environmental history perspective could

impact Heritage Appreciation programming and its ability to achieve Heritage

Appreciation mandates.

The order of the above objectives is significant in that they cumulatively build

upon one another. More specifically, to assess the ability of current programming to meet

agency and site level objectives, the agency and site-level objectives must be assessed.

Similarly, to describe how environmental history could influence H.A. programming and

its ability to achieve its mandates, it is necessary to address objectives one and two. In 57 other words, this study was designed with the knowledge that one must first understand what is currently happening at the Park and within its governing structures in order to assess how environmental history could impact H.A. programming.

In-Depth Interview Results

A total of 14 interviews were conducted from the end of June to the first week of

September 2003. The interviews provided an opportunity to discuss the present state of

H.A. programming at DPP, identify perceived issues with current H.A. programming and to dialogue about the future ideas for H.A. with park interpreters and managers.

Interviews with environmental historians provided the necessary information to assess how environmental history could affect H.A. programming at DPP. They also provided the opportunity to gain an understanding of the mechanics of the integration.

The qualitative data gathered from the interviews yielded several themes and sub- themes related to H.A. in DPP and the introduction of environmental history to H.A. programming (see Table 3).

58

Table 3: Summary of Results - Themes and Sub-Themes

A\ Heritage Appreciation: Perceptions of meaning and purpose 1) The meaning of “Heritage Appreciation” .1 Ambivalence and Confusion .2 Shifts Focus from “Means” to “End Result” .3 Distrust – it Undermines the Focus on “Natural History” 2) Perceived purpose of Heritage Appreciation .1 Awaken/ inspire the public .2 Promote Ecological literacy .3 Informative Recreation B\ Current State of Heritage Appreciation (H.A.) programming at DPP 1) Messages Interpreters and Managers perceive Visitors Leave the Park with: .1 The Programs are Impressive/high quality and the Interpreters are Great .2 Names and Numbers of Dinosaur Species Found at the Park .3 DPP is a Unique and Special Place .4 The Palaeontology and Geology of the Park is Unique and Important .5 Three Reasons DPP is a World Heritage Site .6 DPP is a hard place for People, Plants and Animals to Survive 2) Recommendations For Changing H.A. Programming .1 More Community Outreach .2 Increase Emphasis On Systems Planning/Connections Between Sites .3 Cater Programming To A More Diverse Demographic Market .4 More Experiential/Environmental Education .5 Improve Presentation Of The “Big Picture”/Answer “So What?” .6 Improve Ability of Programming to Promote Ecological Literacy 3) Perceived Issues Related To Change At DPP .1 Politics/Finances .2 Limited Human Resources/Staff Time .3 Fear Of Change/Current Programming is “Stuck in a Rut” 4) Opinions Regarding The Relationship Between Nature And Culture .1 It Is Helpful To Think Of Nature And Culture As Being Separate .2 Nature And Culture Are Inseparable .3 Current Programming Presents Nature And Culture Separately .4 Current Programming Blends Nature And Culture C\ The Integration of H.A. and Environmental History 1) Reasons For Integrating The Environmental History Perspective with H.A .1 Environmental History Perspective Fits With H.A. Mandate .2 Environmental History Perspective Is Suited To Promoting Ecological Citizenship 2) Issues Associated With Integrating The Env. History Perspective with H.A. .1 Environmental History is Different, Unfamiliar and Difficult to Do .2 Culture Of Denial & Pre-Organised Opposition .3 Discipline-Centred Perspectives of Park Managers .4 The Need for Appropriate Leadership 59

A\ Heritage Appreciation: Perceptions of Meaning and Purpose

An assessment of how environmental history could influence H.A. in DPP

requires an understanding of the meaning and purpose of H.A. from the perspective of those involved in program design and delivery. Without this understanding, it would not

be possible to accurately understand how environmental history could change or

otherwise influence H.A. programming at DPP. From the interview data collected, it was

apparent that there were different feelings and perceptions regarding the meaning of

Heritage Appreciation.

A1 The Meaning of “Heritage Appreciation”

Heritage Appreciation is a relatively new term for Alberta Parks. In the past, H.A. was

typically referred to as “park interpretation” and more broadly as “visitor services”.

Comments from those interviewed suggest that there is no unified vision of the meaning

of H.A. In many cases, comments from interviewees suggested there was ambivalence

and confusion surrounding the adoption of the term H.A.

A1.1 Ambivalence and Confusion

For some interviewees, the shift to H.A. is accompanied by feelings of

ambivalence and confusion. One interpreter simply said, “Yeah, I don’t really

understand that term [Heritage Appreciation] I just don’t get why it is called that”

(Gertrude, September 1, 2003). Ambivalence and lack of clarity about the meaning of the

recent changes in terminology was expressed by another interpreter in this way: 60

…to me it just seems like another change in terminology – we were called rangers

at one point in time – of course our job description was different as well. I kind

of have a mixed reaction…I kind of prefer the term “naturalist” and I really don’t

like the term “visitor services”…visitor services could be anything – it could be

scrubbing toilets or maintaining the beach. But I think “Heritage Appreciation,”

“interpretation,” “interpreter” are all kind of synonymous – I think more people

are familiar with the name “interpreter”. (Mabel, July16, 2003)

The above comments indicate that the terminology used to describe public programming at parks has changed numerous times over the years. Mabel expressed ambivalence about the meaning of the term H.A. and suggests that it is synonymous with other terms used in the past.

Other interpreters expressed more confusion than ambivalence. One explained her confusion by saying:

I have trouble with the whole term "H.A." I think it is an interesting concept, but I

have difficulty understanding how to promote H.A. specifically. I don't know if

that makes any sense - I find it a confusing topic. All of our programs to some

extent promote H.A., but it is a really broad term that you could apply to almost

anything – what doesn't promote H.A.? (Edna, August 19, 2003)

The above comments indicate that both Edna and Mabel feel that H.A. is a confusing term and that the meaning of H.A. is unclear or ambiguous.

Some individuals at the managerial level also expressed confusion about the meaning of the recent shift to using Heritage Appreciation. In reflecting on a question about the recent adoption of the term, one manager said: 61

I’m trying to remember why we did that…I think there was a feeling that perhaps

“visitor services” didn’t reflect well enough what we were trying to do.

Although, back when I started, the term visitor services included environmental

education, outdoor recreation, interpretation…interpretation – that hasn’t

changed, but maybe it downplayed the education side of our mandate. I think

that’s where some of that started to shift over…to have people try to “understand”

and “appreciate”. Whether it’s a more appropriate term or not, I don’t know.

(Barney, August 21, 2003)

This manager’s comments reflect confusion as well as a feeling that the reason for the shift from “interpretation/visitor services” to Heritage Appreciation may have been to emphasise the education aspect of park mandates.

Furthermore, another park manager made the following comments regarding the meaning of H.A.:

It is still early and hard to say what it is going to mean. A lot of people still didn’t

know what interpretation was, whereas most people have some sense of what the

word “heritage” is and some sense of the word “appreciation” – so it is

descriptive, but it is a mouthful…and sometimes governments can be full of a lot

of words…so I don’t know, I guess we’ll just have to see… (Dino, September 4,

2003)

This manager’s comments emphasise that H.A. is descriptive and perhaps easier for the public to understand. However, the meaning of the term is still considered to be unclear at the present time. 62

Many of the interpreters and park managers interviewed expressed either feelings of confusion or ambivalence when questioned about the meaning of the term “Heritage

Appreciation.” Comments suggest that the ambivalence expressed may be associated with the frequency with which parks has changed terminology for the public programming offered at the park. These were not, however, the only thoughts expressed regarding the meaning of H.A.

A1.2 Shifts Focus from “Means” to “End Result”

Although some interviewees expressed confusion and ambivalence about the

recent adoption of the word H.A., one manager’s comments reflected confidence that the

shift was purposeful. More specifically, it was suggested that adoption of the term

“H.A.” shifts the focus from the means of delivering messages to the end result:

I think that the original reasoning was the use of that term within IUCN and Parks

Canada. …I think it effectively shifts our focus from means to the ends. When

you manage a program under the title of “interpretation” or “environmental

education” it is very much focused on a specific type of means, whereas when

you use the term H.A, it is much more focused on the end result that you want the

program to achieve. I think that in that respect, it is a healthy shift. Now, I don’t

think that we’ve made that shift to the extent that I’d like to see, but I think it is a

healthy change. Like anything, through time, people start to invest a lot of loyalty

in a specific way of doing things and having an end goal statement that is not tied

to a specific way of doing things is a healthier more objective way of managing a

program. (Bam Bam, July 30, 2003) 63

This interviewee was the only individual who felt that the shift to H.A. was symbolic of a positive change in H.A. focus so that the end result, rather than the means or method of presentation, was emphasised.

A1.3 Distrust – It Shifts the Focus Away From Natural Heritage

Another individual interviewed did not share Bam Bam’s optimism about the recent change in terminology. Indeed, for one interpreter, feelings of distrust accompany the change. He explains:

I am not a big fan of the term “Heritage Appreciation”. I like the word

‘appreciation’ – it is the word ‘heritage’ that bothers me. Nature appreciation

would be nice; a nature appreciation specialist or something like that. I think

H.A. is all encompassing and it encompasses the historical aspects of things and

that is not really something that we really focus on per se – there is a whole other

branch of the department that deals with that. (Hank, July 3, 2003)

Similarly, another interpreter suggested that “heritage…conveys more of a cultural history thing” (Hariet, August 23, 2003). However, Hariet did not express the same feelings of distrust as Hank with respect to this change in emphasis. She explained that

“if we are working to provide environmental consciousness here, then (pause) that is a personal and cultural thing and H.A. is a good term” (Hariet, August 23, 2003).

In summary, most interviewees expressed feelings of confusion and ambivalence when asked about the meaning of H.A. and the reasoning behind the recent adoption of that term. One manager suggested that H.A. effectively shifted the focus of programming from the means to the end result and one interpreter expressed distrust about the term 64 because he felt it would shift the focus of programming away from natural history. The only interviewee who had a clear idea of what H.A. means was involved in upper level management in Alberta Parks. There was not a significant difference between lower level managers and interpreters with respect to understanding the meaning of H.A.

A2 The Purpose of H.A.

Although there were mixed feelings about the meaning of H.A., there was

considerable agreement on the purpose of Heritage Appreciation programming in parks.

A2.1 To Awaken/Inspire the Public

According to one interpreter, the “primary purpose is not necessarily to educate

people, but to inspire people” (Hariet, August 23, 2003). Another individual also

suggested that the purpose of interpretation is to awaken or inspire the public. He

explains it this way:

It is like you are wiping the fog off a window so they can see something for the

first time, or in a new way…People need to be awakened not only to appreciate

but to be driven into action in the sense that you want them to be somewhat

different when they have left than when they came. (Winnie, July 31, 2003)

The above comment highlights the opinion that there is a reason for awakening or

inspiring the public. That reason is to encourage action. Hariet explained the action

component of the H.A. purpose in the following comment: 65

Interpretation for me is not just educating people about a landscape, it is educating

them to empower them to then hopefully save it and come back to make sure it

remains the way it is. (Hariet, August 23, 2003)

Although Hariet feels that the primary purpose of H.A. is to inspire the public, the secondary purpose is to promote action. The action aspect of H.A. overlaps with the next sub-theme: the promotion of ecological integrity/environmental citizenship.

A2.2 To Promote Ecological Literacy/Environmental Citizenship

Although they explained it in slightly different ways, all of the individuals who participated in this study suggested H.A. should ultimately promote ecological literacy, or environmental citizenship. For the purposes of this study, an ecological literate citizen is defined “as someone who knows about, cares for, and acts on behalf of the cultural and ecological integrity of their home-place” (Cuthbertson & Curthroys 2002, p. 227).

One environmental historian suggested the purpose of H.A. should be to promote ecological literacy by simply stating: “my simple view is that people are just as affected by the environment as the environment is by them – it is that two way street. And that is the core element that needs to be brought out in any study, in any interpretation” (Yogi

Bear, August 27, 2003). Comments from another environmental historian described a similar purpose for H.A, explaining:

places that you live in can be radically different from the grassy grid that is the

substantial norm and that we can change our communities into whatever we want

them to be and we don't have to accept the universally obnoxious architectural 66

forms and the hideous destruction of all our main thoroughfares and entrance and

exit roads by paving and shopping malls and idiotic and neutral architecture of

franchise food places and that we don't have to accept all this as a given and that

we can go back and make the places we live in habitable so that they're not a

disjunction between the experience that we have in the backcountry of a region

and how we want to live. So I think that interpretation has the singular most

profound potential to meet those demands. (Smokey, July 6, 2003)

Although the previous comment is not as direct as the first, it still emphasises that the ultimate purpose of H.A. is to promote a different lifestyle expressive of supporting and protecting the cultural and ecological integrity of “home-place”.

The environmental historians were not the only ones who suggested the primary purpose of interpretation is the promotion of ideals that would encourage people to become more ecologically literate citizens; managers have a similar view of the purpose of H.A. This is evidenced in the following conversation between the researcher and Mr.

Slate:

Researcher: So in promoting that type of understanding [people and nature are

interconnected] do you think people will walk away with a better understanding

of how to interrelate with the landscape? And perhaps in a more healthy way?

Mr. Slate: Well, that is the hope, of course. That is what you hope, but we can

never prove that it actually happens, but that is certainly part of the objective…

That fits, I think, the mandate completely. (Mr. Slate, July 30, 2003) 67

The above comments not only suggest that the purpose of H.A. should be to promote ecological integrity, they also link this purpose to park mandates. This idea will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter.

Another manager explained the relationship between ecological literacy and purpose of H.A. more directly by saying:

In the end, what we want is literacy and understanding …and perhaps

commitment, or involvement, or enthusiasm about environment, about the parks

program in the province or globally, or whatever. (Barney, August 21, 2003)

Again, the primary notion expressed in the previous quotation is that H.A. programming should promote attitudes and action typically associated with ecologically literate citizens. The following comments from another park manager also supported the idea that

H.A. should promote ecological literacy. He stated:

It [H.A.] has a many faceted purpose, but primarily it is certainly enlightenment

for people – so that they have a better understanding – building awareness and

eventually moving towards appreciation and changed values and informed voters

or electorate. (Dino, September 4, 2003)

The above comment recognises that although H.A. has many purposes , the primary purpose is considered to be the encouragement of environmental citizenship. When asked about the purpose of H.A. another manager stressed the connection between programming and the preservation of biodiversity and parks for future generations. He said:

[there are] a lot of reasons… why you would do interpretation. But certainly the

environmental responsibility of the public and society in general to ensure that 68

there is biological diversity and just in terms of the aesthetics of these beautiful

landscapes and that we want future generations of Albertan’s and Canadians to be

able to experience those sites – either first hand or vicariously. So I think that is

at the core of what our program is about. (Bam Bam, July 30, 2003)

The above quotations from park managers all support the perception that the promotion of ecological literacy is the purpose of H.A programming. The quotations highlighted above are representative of managers from three levels of government: site, regional and provincial.

The interpreters responsible for presenting H.A. programming at DPP also suggested that the purpose of H.A. should be to develop ecologically literate citizens.

One interpreter simply stated, “that is the number one purpose why I am an interpreter – to make people aware that we do make an impact on the earth and there are things that we can do” (Nettie, August 30, 2003). Another interpreter said:

Just telling people about the park isn’t good enough. There has to be some sort of

underlying theme or reason that we’re doing this – some greater good. I think it’s

more than just giving people the information- it’s giving those people…a sense of

responsibility or ownership for the world that they live in. (Hariet, August 23,

2003)

Another interpreter explained the purpose of H.A. to promote ecological literacy in this way:

I’d like people to have an appreciation for the importance of parks and protected

areas – the importance of working in our societies towards environmental stability

and making people aware that their actions have an impact on the environment 69

and that since we are part of the environment as a whole, it is very important that

we minimise our impact as much as possible. People should leave understanding

that we do have an impact on the environment, but there are things that we can do.

(Edna, August 19, 2003)

The idea that H.A. should promote environmental citizenship was stated more directly by one interpreter who simply stated, “Heritage Appreciation [is] a just a way of helping people to realise the importance of a place. Once a person feels that something is significant and then they might move onto whatever… if it requires protection” (Norm,

July 17, 2003).

In summary, all interviewees (environmental historians, managers and

interpreters) suggested the purpose of H.A. is to promote ecological literacy. And, while

they may have explained it using different words, the intent was the same – to instil in

people an appreciation for their natural and cultural heritage and to motivate action to preserve or protect it.

A2.3 Informative Recreation

Although there was general agreement about the purpose of H.A. within each of

the participant groups (environmental historians, managers, and interpreters) one

interpreter suggested that she did not think the promotion of ecologically literate citizens

was the primary purpose of H.A in the “managers’ eye”. She explained:

…in the managers’ eye, it has a lot to do with informative recreation. People

come here and have options for camping and hiking. Interpretation helps them to

enjoy those areas and maybe learn a bit more about them in the process, but I 70

don’t necessarily think that – well, I’m pretty sure that the mandate for parks isn’t

to promote environmental issues and to get people to think about those – develop

awareness. (Nettie, August 30, 2003)

The above comment not only suggests there is an impression that park managers feel the purpose of H.A. is “informative recreation”, it also suggests this interpreter does not think that promotion of “environmental issues” is part of the park mandate. This apparent contradiction will be discussed in the next chapter.

B\ Current State of H.A. Programming at DPP

B1 Messages that Interpreters and Managers Perceive Visitors are Leaving Park With

Assessing how environmental history could influence H.A. in Dinosaur Provincial

Park requires at least a preliminary understanding of what messages visitors are taking away from H.A. programs at DPP. A complete understanding of what messages visitors leave the park with would require visitor surveys. Such surveys are beyond the scope of this research study. For this research study, the perceptions research participants have concerning messages visitors are leaving with will provide sufficient information for later discussion and comparison with program scripts and management plans.

B1.1 The Programs are Impressive and “High Quality”

A common perception amongst managers and interpreters is that visitors leave the

park feeling the H.A. programming at the park is well done. When reflecting on

feedback from visitors, one manager explained “we clearly exceed a lot of people’s first-

time expectations by a considerable amount” (Dino, September 4, 2003). An interpreter 71 had a similar perception. She said, “visitors to the park are really impressed with the programming we have. I think that we do have a high level of programming” (Edna,

August 19, 2003).

An individual who used to work for Alberta Parks conducted some informal research on the messages visitors are leaving the park with in the early 1980’s and discovered that one of the primary messages park visitors were leaving with was that the interpreters were really good. He explains:

During one exit survey at the viewpoint – a place where people often take a final

picture of the badlands – I adopted the participant observer strategy to ask people

things so they wouldn’t know that they were being surveyed. At first I thought it

was really good - people always talked about the interpreters and the fact that they

thought they were really good - that they were really entertaining – and whenever

I’d ask anything about the place, they would always recount their memories of

these interpreters and how great they were. (Winnie the Pooh, July 31, 2003)

The above comment suggests people leave remembering the quality of the programs and alludes to the idea that this individual does not necessarily think this is the message they should be leaving with. This idea will be explored further in the discussion chapter.

The feeling that DPP offers high quality programming was not the only message interviewees perceived visitors to the park leave with. Others suggested visitors leave with more “factual” information, like the names of Dinosaur species.

72

B1.2 Names and Number of Dinosaur Species Found at the Park

One manager suggests people leave the park understanding “how many Dinosaur

species we have” (Dino, September 4, 2003). Another explains, “we also have one of the

richest fossil resources in the world – I think people really do come away with that

impression and they are pretty excited about that” (Edna, August 19, 2003). Related to

the message that DPP is one of the “richest fossil resources in the world”, is the notion

that DPP is a unique and special place.

B1.3 DPP is a Unique and Special Place

Some interpreters and managers feel visitors leave the park with the message that

it is a unique and special place. When reflecting on one of the hikes offered at the park,

one interpreter said:

it [the Coulee Hike] is a one of those hikes, where at the end people just feel

richer or something. When they are silent at the end of a hike, and just sort of

soaking it up, I think that kind of shows you that they taken something pretty

strong from it. I don’t see people coming off many of those programs without

having gained something in their appreciation for the park. (Norm, June, 2003)

Another interpreter had a similar perception that visitors leave the park with the

understanding that DPP is a unique and special place. She explained that “right now, people come to the park and they see it as a really interesting place and unique fossil resource” (Edna, August19, 2003). This thought was echoed by another interpreter who said, “it is important to drive home the message that DPP is a unique space and to tell people about what makes it so unique – fossils, animals and birds” (Hariet, August 23, 73

2003). This last comment from Hariet indicates visitors leave DPP not just with an understanding that DPP is unique and important, but also with some knowledge of what it is that makes the park unique and important.

B1.4 The Palaeontology and Geology of the Park is Unique and Important

Two primary elements stood out with respect to the uniqueness of the Park:

palaeontology and geology. Interviewees perceived visitors left with a clear

understanding of the importance of these two elements of the Park. One interpreter

explained:

We’re kind of trapped in a palaeo-bubble here because that’s what people come

here to see…I think people come here to learn about dinosaurs. In that way, I

think we’re doing a great job. (Gertrude, September 1, 2003)

Another interpreter suggested the uniqueness and importance of the geological and

palaeontological resources of the Park was a message clearly communicated on the

Centrosaurus Bone Bed Hike. This is explained in the following comment about the hike:

They’re taking away knowledge of what this area looked like 75 million years

ago, why we find so many dinosaur fossils in this area; they get a sense of the

geology of the area and how it has been shaped over time; then we look at

palaeontologists and how erosion effects things over time - how that impacts what

we find. We talk about theories and how new evidence requires us to change ideas

over time. We talk a lot about how bones and their position in the ground 74

tell us about the dinosaurs. We get to go to a site and that is very exciting for a lot

of people and it is really nice that we tell them exactly what happened at that site.

(Edna, August 19, 2003)

Whether it is a message about the position of fossilised bones, or what the landscape of

DPP would have looked like 75 million years ago, the messages communicated on the

CBBH all relate to the importance and uniqueness of the geology and/or palaeontology of the Park.

Other interpreters also suggested people leave the park understanding that it’s geology and palaeontology are unique and important. One interpreter explains this impression in reference to the Bus Tour. She says:

The Bus Tour is supposedly a general overview of the entire park – it talks about

mainly geology and palaeontology – it’s up to the interpreter, but not a whole lot

of ecology or cultural history. So I think people are taking away, what the thrust

of this park is all about – the dinosaurs – I think they take away that information

and a lot of people are super keen and that’s why a lot of people come here.

(Edna, August 19, 2003)

This interpreter has the impression the Bus Tour primarily gives visitors the message that the palaeontology and geology of the park is unique and important; others have a different impression.

B1.5 The three reasons why DPP is a World Heritage Site

One interpreter suggests the message visitors take away from the Bus Tour is “the three reasons why DPP is a World Heritage Site” (Gertrude, September 1, 2003). 75

Another interpreter echoes this thought about the “take-home” message of the Bus Tour with the following comment:

It [the Bus Tour] gives a really good understanding of why the park is

important…I think that was the point of writing it around the three reasons the

park has World Heritage Site Status. (Norm, July17, 2003)

In addition to the Bus Tour, there are hikes offered at the park. Interpreters perceive visitors leave these experiences with different messages than those previously mentioned.

B1.6 DPP is a Hard Place for People, Plants and Animals to Survive

Other messages visitors leave with revolve around the fact that DPP is a hard

place for people, plants and animals to survive. One interpreter explains, “On some tours

I talk about the early people and their challenges here” (Edna, August 19, 2003). Another

interpreter also thinks that some of the tours communicate the message that DPP is a

challenging place to survive. However, she feels that the focus is primarily on the

survival challenges of plants and animals rather than people. This feeling is explained in the following comment about the Coulee Hike:

…it would be neat to add our role into the ecosystem as well – and that it wasn’t

just a struggle for plants, and dinosaurs to survive – it’s a place where people

struggle to survive as well – it’s a pretty dry environment. (Nettie, August 30,

2003)

One of the more specific survival challenges interpreters feel visitors leave the park

understanding is that of the endangered cottonwood habitat in the park. One interpreter

explains: 76

On the Bus Tour, I get into the cottonwoods and management issues surrounding

them and the fact that they have been really impacted by people in the past and

that they are a valuable and desirable part of this ecosystem. (Edna, August 19,

2003)

In summary, the messages concerning the fact that DPP is/was a challenging place to survive covered a diverse range of survival subjects: people, dinosaurs, plants and cottonwood trees. It was perceived that this message was communicated on several tours

– specifically the Bus Tour and Coulee Hike.

B2 Recommendations for Changing H.A. programming

Interview data not only highlighted perceived messages that visitors were leaving

DPP with, it also provided recommendations for changing current programming. The

recommended changes will be summarised in the following section and discussed in the

next chapter.

B2.1 More Community Outreach

One of the recommendations interviewees made concerning future programming

was that it should extend into the community. One manager explained that “outreach is becoming more important…the thought in the last year or two was that we have to take the parks to the people” (Barney, August 21, 2003). Another manager commented that

Alberta Parks “has identified community outreach as a major priority [for the future]”

(Bam Bam, July 30, 2003). He explains one of the reason for this emphasis has been to

“extend our market and audience responsibilities to all Albertans rather than just 77 those…that can afford to travel to parks. [By doing so] we increase our sphere of influence and the degree of impact that we have” (Bam Bam, July 30, 2003).

Managers were not the only ones who argued for more community outreach programs in the future. An interpreter also suggested there should be “extension programs [that] take your park and interpretation out where the people are” (Norm, July

17, 2003). Edna also emphasised the need for more community outreach, but framed that outreach within the context of local communities and the significance of parks to locals. She explains:

If they are local to the area, they should be aware that this is part of where they

live and that there are cultural events that have happened here that have affected

the development of the country or the province- it is part of the cultural heritage

and the natural world – which we are a part of – so connecting people with that.

(Edna, August 19, 2003)

The above comment alludes to the need for H.A. programming to connect people from local communities with their heritage. This point is made more directly by one of the environmental historians in the following comment:

… the concept of establishing sense of place that [is] the foundation of

interpretation…must expand outward from interpretive programs to become the

basis of how a community articulates who and what it is. If you’re just using all

the old techniques and usual superficial strategies that build up the placelessness

of global tourism then your interpretation will have ultimately failed you.

(Smokey, July 6, 2003) 78

Smokey’s comment stresses that H.A. programming can help establish sense of place and new foundations for communities. Both his comment and Edna’s, take the concept of community outreach beyond just bringing programs into local communities to using H.A. as a means to bond parks and their local communities.

B2.2 Increase Emphasis on Systems Planning/ Connection Between DPP and

Other Related Sites

A common idea shared by interpreters and managers for future programming is to

tailor it to communicating that DPP is part of a system of parks and protected areas. One

manager describes his version of the systems plan:

From a systems perspective we are part of a protected areas network…right now,

we fly the UN flag and we have a couple of token pictures in our display areas,

but there really isn’t a place to deliver the message that there is a world-wide

effort going on here… That would be a dream of mine- to much more strongly

demonstrate the international connection here…just so people realise that as

important as the stuff is that we do here, we are a piece of a much large puzzle

and a lot of that work does go on. (Dino, September 4, 2003)

Another park manager had similar thoughts about increasing the connection between

DPP and other sites in the world. His sentiments are summarised in the following

quotation:

…how does DPP link to other World Heritage Sites? – If it’s part of that network,

maybe some exposure to that program and what that’s all about would be kind of

neat. We’ve talked about having messages on “like sites” – Dinosaur Monument 79

and some of those sites…and also nearby sites [like] Kinbrook Island. (Barney,

August 21, 2003)

An interpreter also suggested connecting DPP to other World Heritage Sites would be important. She suggested, “we can tell people about other World Heritage Sites. These things aren’t necessarily what people expect to hear when they are here, but I think it’s important” (Gertrude, September1, 2003). Another interpreter commented there was a need to make connections between DPP and other parks in the province. He noted there was a need for “more tie- ins or more connections between Dinosaur and other parks”

(Hank, July 3, 2003). This suggestion was echoed by another interpreter who explained that “we need to be emphasising the importance and significance of the protected areas

[network] and what they mean to people…[so] the park visitor [understands] that this is

[theirs] and it’s up to [them] to take responsibility for it” (Mabel, July 16, 2003). A manager provided similar rational for the purpose of increasing visitor knowledge of the

PPA system in Alberta. He explained:

One of the critical messages that I think we should be delivering at all sites is how

that site contributes to protecting significant resources that are…representative of

those natural landscapes [and] that the world would be incredibly impoverished if

those sites were not protected. (BamBam, July 30, 2003)

Interpreters and managers were not the only ones to suggest H.A. programming in parks, like DPP, need to do a better job at communicating the connections between other sites. One of the environmental historians interviewed offered the following suggestion:

To look at the provincial system, we need to stop looking at them as individual

isolated parks and really start to think of them as crystals – fine representative 80

examples of the larger region in which they exist and to begin to take a more

bioregional approach to seeing the province and seeing the west – and to get past

boundary scenarios. (Smokey, July 6, 2003)

In summary, managers, interpreters and one of the environmental historians feel that linkages between like-sites, other provincial parks and other World Heritage Sites are not currently being made. This is considered to be something that needs to be improved upon so that people will understand the significance of places like DPP.

B2.3 Cater to a More Diverse Demographic Market

Another need that was highlighted by those interviewed was associated with

untapped demographic markets. One manager suggested there was a need to

reach some of the audiences we don’t do very well at…we were talking about

adults and “adults only” sort of audiences…we’re really family focused and I’m

not denying that’s an important audience, but I think there are other age groups

who would enjoy the park without having a bunch of kids around. (Barney,

August 21, 2003)

Another manager made a similar observation that programming at DPP catered mainly to the family demographic and left others out. He stated:

There is a lot of opportunity to provide experiences to a wider age group…it

seems to me that a lot of the evening presentations appeal to families with kids

under ten. I think that teenagers, young adults and young adult couples and

seniors are a market worth pursuing. (Bam Bam, July 30, 2003) 81

The above comments suggest there is a need for future programming to cater to individuals and groups who are not part of the family demographic.

B2.4 More Experiential/Environmental Education Programs

Several interviewees suggested H.A. programming at DPP needed to offer programs that were more experiential and/or more environmental education programs.

One interpreter said she “would love to see more environmental education” offered at the park (Hariet, August 23, 2003). The same interpreter stated there was also an absence of experiential learning opportunities. She suggested “ we should change the programs and

make them less focused on so much information and more focused on letting people

explore and to see the badlands” (Hariet, August 23, 2003).

Another interpreter also identified the lack of environmental education

programming as a potential gap that could be filled. Her comments, however, also

indicate that there are some complications associated with DPP and environmental

education. This is summarised in the following quotation:

The only problem with DPP is that it is not in the middle of a large centre – the

closest place is Brooks – it is only 12000 people. However, I think there are a lot

of materials that we can give to schools or rent to schools or giving them the

opportunity to learn some of this stuff in the classroom without the staff actually

having to be there. (Nettie, August 30, 2003)

The above comment suggests that, although there is a need for environmental education

programming at DPP, it is best filled through the provision of learning materials to the

schools rather than through the introduction of more programs at the Park. 82

B2.5 Improve Presentation of the “Big Picture” and Answer the Question- “So

What”?

Some interpreters suggested that H.A. programming at DPP could do a better job at presenting the big picture. For example, Nettie stated:

Dinosaur has this extreme separation in its programming – you’re either talking

about natural history or you’re talking about cultural history. I think that’s where

some of the problems lie – we don’t really consider the park to have this big

picture…It is something we never talk about. I don’t even know what other

interpreters think about the big picture. (Nettie, August 30, 2003)

Another interpreter also suggested that the big picture was missing and this was directly related to the absence of an answer to the question “So what?” She stated:

A lot of the information we have focuses on the very specifics of the park. So I

guess we need to know what the big picture is here – why should people care

about the park? Why should people care about dinosaur bones – the dinosaurs are

extinct! They’re dead! They’re gone! Why should we care about that? Why is

that scientifically, culturally and ecologically important? I think that link is

definitely missing here…because right now, I couldn’t give you an answer. Why

do we dig up dinosaur bones? …That “so what” is missing at this park. (Hariet,

August 23, 2003)

83

B2.6 Improve Ability of Programming to Address Environmental Issues and

Promote Environmental Citizenship

In addition to noting the need for big picture messages, some interviewees also suggested the ability of programming to address environmental issues and promote environmental citizenship needs to be improved. In order to address this, one interpreter suggested current programming avoided environmental issues altogether. She stated:

I just thought it would be important as a protected area to talk about

environmental issues, but it is like we are scared to talk about them because we

are the government. (Gertrude, September 1, 2003)

Another interpreter made a similar comment, saying: “I’ve had the impression since I’ve been working here that things that are controversial won’t be addressed, or should not be addressed” (Edna, August 19, 2003). Nettie mirrored Edna’s observation and stated “we don’t present a lot of environmental issues in parks or get people to change their lifestyle or give them options to change their lifestyle” (Nettie, August 30, 2003). Not only does the previous comment highlight the notion that current programming does not address environmental issues, it also indicates that it does not encourage people to change their lifestyle. Other interpreters and managers also made this observation.

One interpreter explained “the idea that it is a benefit to people to have parks and protected areas exist and that in order for them to continue, the public needs to show its support for them…is not communicated that well” (Edna, August 19, 2003). Another interpreter explained, “there’s a lot of people who get off the Bus Tour feeling inspired, but I feel like I’m just delivering information about the park on that tour and I don’t have the chance to inspire that greater purpose” (Hariet, August 23, 2003). Earlier in the 84 interview with Hariet, I asked her to clarify what she meant by the “greater purpose” of parks. Hariet’s explained that, for her, the greater purpose is to create a “greater environmental conscience and awareness of natural space in Alberta and give them the tool box they need to protect and save such an environment” (Hariet, August 23, 2003).

Hariet’s definition of the greater purpose of parks emphasises encouraging people to become environmental citizens. She suggests she does not feel she has an opportunity to inspire this greater purpose through current programming.

One of the park managers also acknowledged programming could do a better job at promoting environmental citizenship. He explains:

You can’t just have people stop caring at the park boundary; they’ve got to take it

home. There has to be that value transfer because what they do at home from

flushing the toilet to turning a light on to driving a vehicle. All of that can put a

lot of pressure on the environment. It really doesn’t matter a “hoot” if we have all

these little islands of parks all preserved and sacrosanct if what is going on around

them is going to hell in a hand cart because people are not aware that it may

require some lifestyle changes. Not always painful necessarily, but there is

something there in the bigger picture. Hopefully this one will move to that level

in the future [emphasis added] - will tie into the bigger environmental picture on a

national or an international scale. That remains to be seen – in terms of how we

get there. (Dino, September, 2003)

The above comment suggests the protection of parks requires H.A. programming to inspire a “value transfer”. Dino recognises current programming is not capable of doing so, but hopes that programming at DPP can present this perspective “in the future”. 85

The implications of the inability of current programming to promote environmental citizenship will be discussed in the following chapter.

B3 Perceived Issues Related to Change at DPP

Data collected from the interviewees revealed that managers, environmental

historians and park interpreters felt there were several issues related to changing

programming at DPP. These issues will be identified and supporting quotations presented in the next section.

B3.1 Politics/Finances

Politics and financial restrictions were both identified as issues related to

changing programming at DPP. One interviewee explained that politics and subsequent

financial restrictions at the provincial level have created an unstable system of H.A.

programming. This is evidenced in the following comment:

The limitations in the provincial system is the nature of the programming…it's

constantly going through reorganisation and refocus and you've gone through at

least five rounds of quite significant cost-cutting programs. Despite the fact that a

great deal of energy goes into what I consider quite high quality programs, you

can't keep doing that without altering the success of it. You must first recognise

that this is a valid way of working and that not only is it public programming that

you are looking at, but the sensibilities that are generated through that public

programming upholds the purpose of your whole system - that's a big realisation.

(Smokey, July 6, 2003) 86

The above comment stresses that several cost-cutting programs have affected Alberta

Parks and that these cost reductions have inevitably impacted programming. Other individuals involved with management in Alberta Parks recognise the unstable financial reality of PPA’s can impact change. One manager notes, “it is a big juggling act to work with the pot of money that you’ve got and then try to address as many needs as you possibly can without having the whole system collapse on you” (Mr. Slate, June 30,

2003). It was further explained that:

The current government priorities are to deal with some of the really large big-

ticket items: debt reduction, health, and education. And it means all of the

programs are just absolutely scrambling for every nickel and most of the money

that we are able to devote to any of this interpretive programming is a result of the

internal allocation rather then new funding and that’s where we are stuck at the

moment. We are desperately trying; we try every year; the minister tries every

year. There is all kinds of sympathy, more than sympathy, I mean you go to

various government committees – there is all kinds of interest and clearly the

MLA’s value the parks systems. But they are concerned by the relatively low

level of resources that are available and frankly there is little that can be done

right now until the economic situation turns around a bit and they get a firm

handle on how they are going to deal with a sustainable health care system for the

future. (Mr. Slate, July 30, 2003)

The above comments recognise the close relationship between the politics and the money that gets allocated to parks. More specifically, it reveals that political parties prioritise 87 their budgets and that, at the present time, Parks and H.A. programming are not considered high priority.

Interpreters also perceived several issues surrounding financial restrictions in parks. One interpreter explains that he is concerned with the current cost-recovery emphasis of H.A. programming:

Within the parks I also am a little concerned - especially at Dinosaur - with the

emphasis on making sure that all the tours are full and that we are charging for

everything. I understand the need to charge but it is really starting to become a

business more than a public service. (Hank, July 1, 2003).

Politically, the relative low priority of H.A. programming and parks was considered to be related to financial restrictions. In turn, these financial restrictions were identified as issues with programming changes.

B3.2 Limited Human Resources

Limited human resources are also noted as an issue related to changing

programming at DPP. One interpreter explains:

we have a whole set of Environmental education programs – they just haven’t

been put up yet [Researcher: Why?] Manpower.… if “X” is the only person here

in the winter, it’s not going to happen – that program isn’t going to work. And

when we come in the spring, we’re already getting into tours, planning,

training…there’s no time to get these programs up and running. (Nettie, August,

30, 2003) 88

The above observation indicates that, although environmental education programming materials exist at the park, Nettie feels they cannot be implemented due to a lack of human resources and lack of staff time. Comments from one manager mirror this interpreter’s perception that limited human resources and time are issues related to the ability to change. When pondering about adding new programs, he plainly stated:

I think we would need additional staff – we are like a rubber band that has been

stretched to its max right now. I think we would want to maintain the same level

of what we are doing now – the same number of hikes, evening programs and bus

tours. So I think we will need additional manpower to support the indoor

programming. (Dino, September 4, 2003)

The same manager also suggested that the issue of limited human resources and time is problematic because it has resulted in programming that is only capable of focusing specifically on the site. He explains the issue this way:

[With a] lack of resources, there is only so much you can do. You inevitably take

care of a short list of things and that usually ends up being site specific stuff – the

“here and now” right away –especially if stuff isn’t going to have pay-back for

years or decades- it is very easy to dismiss it. So you deal with the immediacy of

a crisis or a need. (Dino, September 4, 2003)

The implications of the above comment on the ability of H.A. programming to achieve park mandates will be discussed in the following chapter.

89

B3.3 Fear of Change/Current Programming is “Stuck in a Rut”

Some interpreters and managers sensed that there is a “fear” to change and that

current programming is “stuck in a rut”. One interpreter commented that:

The programs we have right now are fine, but they haven’t changed in a long

time. There is no need to re-invent the wheel when things are going well, but

when they haven’t changed since the early 1990’s, that is problematic. Didn’t an

old interpreter come here and tell us we were using some of the same jokes as she

did ten years ago? [Researcher: Yeah] Because we have such a changeover in

interpreters, we don’t even really notice. (Edna, August 19, 2003)

The above comment highlights that Edna feels programming has not changed in a long time and, more importantly, she feels the lack of change is problematic. One of the issues keeping programming in this rut is identified as the high changeover of interpreters at the park.

Another interpreter also noted that H.A. programming had not changed in a long time, but she cited other reasons. She said:

I think it’s very difficult to change things and I don’t think it really helps when we

all return knowing what it was like the year before and don’t expect anything to

change either. So it sort of adds to the fact that we don’t think anything is ever

going to change. I just think that the managers of the park need to realise that we

need to keep adding new things to the park – we need to be discussing more of a

bigger perspective. We need to be changing to be in tune with all of the visitors

that are here. We need to be a more current and relevant park, I guess. Those are 90

the challenges – I don’t think those who work at this park full time realise that

there needs to be any change….or at least they don’t know what those changes

need to be, so they’re not really sure where to start. (Nettie, August, 2003)

The above comment suggests that the attitudes of interpreters and managers alike are influencing/affecting the rate of change to programming at DPP. Managers are thought to be unaware of the need to change and interpreters are perceived to think that change will not happen, so it is not worth pursuing.

In the following statement, another interpreter echoed the sense that programming has not changed in a long time, but blamed the static nature of current programming on fear:

I think the biggest thing is that this park can’t be afraid to change. It hasn’t

changed in years and years and years. I don’t know whether they need someone

new here who is running the programs, whether they need someone who is just

in charge of programs….the park is never going to change if we don’t change our

programs. We’ve had interpreters who have come back from the mid-nineties and

told us that these are the same programs they did in the mid-nineties. Stuff

needs to change here – we need to take a risk, jump of the bridge and see what

happens if we cut the bus tour – what happens then? Or if we take out half the bus

tours and replace them with environmental education programs….you know and

if it doesn’t work, then you put it back it to the old way the next summer and try

something new again. You can’t be afraid to fail. (Hariet, September 2003) 91

On a similar line to the perception that fear impairs changes in programming at DPP, one manager suspected there could be also be an unwillingness to change within the Park. He stated:

We have to ask that serious question of the kind of impact that our programming

is having - whether hike, evening program, whatever…that is the question we

need to ask. I'm not sure of the comfort level of other people in the organisation -

first of all whether they are willing to pose the question and secondly, how they

would deal with the results. (Bam Bam, July 30, 2003)

In summary, managers and interpreters highlighted several issues related to changing programming at DPP. “External” issues, including a lack of money, human resources and time were mentioned. “Internal” issues, including a fear of change and a perception that programming is “stuck in a rut” were also highlighted.

B4 Opinions Regarding the Relationship Between Nature and Culture

During the interviews, each participant was told that I had heard a debate regarding nature and culture. I asked participants if they thought nature and culture should be considered separate from each other or whether they thought they were connected. Following is a summary of the responses.

B4.1 It is Helpful to Separate Nature and Culture

When I asked one of the interpreters if he thought there should be a separation

between nature and culture, he gave the following response: 92

I think so, yeah. I think so even though I do speak of the cultural component, I

still feel a stronger bond to the natural component than I do to the cultural one and

I believe that there are people out there that are much better qualified to speak

about the cultural component than I am. (Hank, July 3, 2003)

The above comment highlights Hank’s opinion that nature and culture should be separate.

It also highlights a feeling that he is more comfortable talking about natural history than cultural history because of his training in that field of study. One of the other interviewees who used to be involved in management also suggested that separation between nature and culture is helpful. More specifically, he stated:

there are trained incapacities…if this [cultural history] is what you are trained for

then there is an incapacity to work on ecological stuff. So melding it all together

is just confusing. (Winnie, July 31, 2003)

According to Winnie, blending natural and cultural history is confusing. Winnie and

Hank were the only interviewees who felt that it was helpful to separate nature and culture.

B4.2 Nature and Culture are Inseparable

Twelve of the 14 individuals interviewed felt nature and culture should not be

separated. The following summary of quotations is representative of each family

(managers, interpreters, environmental historians) of interviewees.

When I asked one manager if nature and culture should be seen as separate

entities he quickly gave the following response: 93

No…..no….geography in university was sort of like that too, where they

specialised off – there was economic geography, physical geography and human

geography and urban geography and all this kind of thing. But I didn’t ever buy

that – they’re one in the same – the natural side of life is tied and connected to the

cultural side and often understanding the natural world can be helped by

explaining cultural aspects of it, I think, and vice versa. So I don’t think they’re

separate, I think they’re linked…they should be… (Barney, August 21, 2003)

Another manager suggested “it could be a very arbitrary division…[but]…I don’t think you can really divorce people from the land” (Dino, September 4, 2003). Both Dino and

Barney’s comments clearly indicate they personally do not think nature and culture are separate. This view is mirrored by another manager who plainly stated, “I don’t think there really is or should be a division between the two of them” (Mr. Slate, July 30,

2003).

When I asked interpreters if they considered there to be a division between nature and culture they were more reflective in their answers than the managers, but their responses still illustrated that they thought nature and culture were ultimately one in the same. Consider the following comment:

people…we’re part of the environment and culture has come out of the

environment and environment is changed by culture and so it’s kind of this weird

feedback system that goes on all the time. That’s an interesting question…I’ve

never really thought about it…(pause)...both are equally important (Mabel, July

16, 2003) 94

The above comment illustrates how Mabel feels that nature and culture are inter-related.

Other interpreters also suggested that nature and culture are inseparable. When I told

Gertrude, for example, that some people thought nature and culture were separate, she simple stated, “I don’t think that’s true” (Sept.1, 2003). I asked Nettie if she thought it was important to blend nature and culture and this was her reply: “I think it would be – and it would help people to understand where they fit into this world as well” (Nettie,

August 30, 2003). Another interpreter expressed a similar view. More specifically, when

I asked whether she thought there was a separation between ecological and cultural heritage, Edna responded:

I like to take holistic approaches to things. So you can separate them…but I don’t

think that they have to be separated. It is very interesting to look at an area and

you can look at how people have historically related to that environment and the

natural world and that very easily ties natural and cultural heritage together.

(August 19, 2003)

In the above comment, Edna does not directly state that she feels nature and culture are inseparable. However, her comment does suggest she is more supportive of their integration rather than their separation. Another interpreter was more direct in stating she felt nature and culture were related. When asked if she felt there was a link between ecological and cultural heritage, Hariet made the following comment:

I think there is a link because as people, we interact with the natural world every

single day – whether we realise it or not…and I think that the environment plays a

huge part in shaping our cultural history. So I think there is definitely a link 95

between the ecological and the cultural and I think that we can’t ever get away

from that. (Hariet, August 23, 2003)

In the above comment, Hariet not only suggests that nature and culture are inseparable, she also states that nature shapes culture. The environmental historians interviewed also shared this opinion.

When I asked Smokey what he thought about making a distinction between cultural and ecological heritage, he made the following comment: “It’s pretty short sighted…To separate ecological history from cultural history is what gets us into trouble”

(Smokey, July 6, 2003). Yogi (August 27, 2003), another environmental historian, was equally as direct. He simply stated: “people are just as affected by the environment as the environment is by them – it is a two way street”.

B4.3 Current Programming Presents Nature and Culture Separately

Although the vast majority of interviewees felt nature and culture were inseparable, many of them felt current programming presented them separately. This notion is expressed in the following comment:

I think we often present it [culture and nature] in a different way and….it is two

separate divisions, but I don’t think it has to be – I think it can be part of the

whole big picture –but we don’t usually present the whole picture. (Nettie, August

30, 2003)

Another interpreter expressed similar views. More specifically, she said: 96

In what I have seen here, it [programming] is divided into two separate sections.

If you want to make the link yourself, then you can, but I don’t see it presented to

us per se. (Edna, August 19, 2003)

Edna’s comment not only highlights that she feels programming is divided into two separate sections (culture and nature), it also suggests that, although interpreters are free to make the link “in their own”, no information is provided that makes the link for them.

When asked about whether programming presents the link between culture and nature, another interpreter simply stated, “I don’t think that we really talk a lot about it.”

(Gertrude, Sept. 1, 2003).

None of the interpreters interviewed felt that current programming blended nature and culture.

B4.4 Current Programming Blends Nature and Culture

Only one research participant suggested that current programming blends nature

and culture. One of the managers interviewed explained the blend in the following

statement:

This is one classic case where there is a real blending of the two [natural and

cultural history]. We have interesting stories and interesting characters without

the natural history side getting involved, but often people like to know the story

behind the person. So inevitably, you can’t really separate it here – the story of

the paleo cultural history vs. the paleo natural history. Because it was in the early

years before the park was established, not a lot was known and these people were

truly pioneers in the scientific sense and their perceptions, biases and inclinations 97

influenced what was dug up and how it was interpreted. And there is inevitably a

cultural spin – even on natural history. (Dino, Sept. 4, 2001)

In the comment above, Dino states that he feels there is a blend of natural and cultural history in DPP. He also suggests that one cannot separate natural history from cultural history and that he feels that the story of palaeontological discovery in the park is an example of where this blend occurs in current programming.

Other managers who were interviewed were less certain about whether current programming blended nature and culture. One manager simply stated, “That’s hard to answer…I haven’t seen a lot of the delivery in recent years…yeah…I don’t know”

(Barney, August 21, 2003).

C\ Integrating Environmental History and Heritage Appreciation

Only a few of the individuals interviewed for this study had previous knowledge

of environmental history. Thus, few could specifically comment about its integration into

H.A. programming. That said, research data revealed that those interviewees with prior

knowledge of environmental history identified that there are reasons to support the

integration, and that there are challenges associated with the integration.

C1 Support for Integrating Environmental History and H.A.

C1.1 The Environmental History Perspective Fits with Park Mandates

One reason that interviewees supported the integration of environmental history

and H.A. was because it presented a perspective that fit with Park mandates. An

individual involved in Alberta Parks stated: 98

I very much encourage what I call cultural ecology, which I think you are calling

environmental history. [I encourage] that perspective being brought to bear on

heritage interpretation in the parks. Again, because I think one of the important

things that comes out of that, is that even pre-historically- forget about modern

times- humans influence the natural environment. It wasn’t just a question of

people didn’t simply exist in a symbiotic relationship with nature and not have

impact on it; there has always been a interrelationship between human occupation

and the environment in which both are affected. (Mr. Slate, July 30, 2003)

Promoting the environmental history perspective that humans influence nature and nature influences humans is considered to be an important message to communicate in parks. Mr. Slate explains it this way:

There is a fair amount of environmental conditioning of culture as a result of what

the environment can sustain but there is also no question that even at a pretty

simple cultural level, human activities have an impact on the environment. That, I

think, is a very interesting story for any parks interpretive program. It also has

obviously modern implications that there is only one earth and how we treat it is

going to impact the earth we occupy in the future. So, I think it is beneficial for

the parks to continue to develop those themes in the interpretive programming.

(Mr. Slate, July 30, 2003)

It is important to note here that Mr. Slate was the only individual directly involved in the

Alberta Parks system who could comment specifically about the integration of an 99

“environmental history perspective into H.A. programming. None of the other interpreters or park managers had pre-interview knowledge of environmental history.

Both of the environmental historians interviewed supported its integration into parks. One environmental historian interviewed writes park-related literature. When asked about whether he thought environmental history was important for parks he gave the following response: “All my work right now is an ecological history – I’ve given up on the other” (Smokey, July 6, 2003). This comment indicates Smokey supports integration into parks. The other environmental historian interviewed expressed his support for the integration by simply stating: “I really don’t see how you can talk about parks separate from environmental history…I just don’t” (Yogi, August 27, 2003). He explained the support he expressed for integrating environmental history and H.A. by saying:

When it’s done right, it is a holistic approach to many of the themes and topics

that normally come up in parks. It is probably one of the very few and maybe the

only discipline out there that does that – that tries to incorporate all of these major

perspectives but still tries to present one major theme at the end of the day. If

there are other ones, I don’t know what they are. (Yogi, August 2003)

The above comment suggests Yogi supports the integration of environmental history into

H.A. programming because it fits with themes and topics that normally come up in parks.

The themes and topics discussed in parks are grounded by park mandates. Connections between environmental history themes and park themes and mandates will be discussed further in the following chapter.

100

C1.2 Environmental History Perspective is Suited to Promoting Ecological

Citizenship

The environmental historians who were interviewed also supported the integration of environmental history and H.A. because they felt it could provide better information suited to communicating the interrelationship between nature and culture. According to

Yogi, environmental history provides a “broad perspective…an integrated perspective on the human and natural history” (Yogi, August 27, 2003). He suggests this perspective is important to present in parks because:

you can only understand the relationship of man to nature if you study both sides

of it. My simple view is that people are just as affected by the environment as the

environment is by them – it is that two way street. And that is the core element

that needs to be brought out in any study, in any interpretation. (Yogi, August 27,

2003)

In summary, Yogi feels environmental history should be integrated into H.A. programming because it provides better information for communicating the inter- relationship between people and nature. As will be discussed later, understanding that people and nature are interconnected is a pillar of ecological literacy.

Another environmental historian also suggested environmental history could provide interpreters with the holistic perspective needed for H.A. programming and capable of promoting ecological literacy. It is argued there is currently “a separation between culture and place that threatens not only our place, but our culture now”

(Smokey, July 6, 2003). Smokey then suggests there is a need to adopt an interdisciplinary approach to interpretation because “to prevent the interdisciplinary 101 approach…is to prevent us from advancing toward or realising our problems and dealing with them” (Smokey, July 6, 2003). The connection between understanding environmental problems and the promotion of ecological literacy will be discussed in the next chapter.

Although there was definitely support expressed for the integration of environmental history and heritage appreciation, interviewees also highlighted some issues related to the integration.

C2 Issues Associated with Integrating Environmental History and H.A.

As evidenced in the literature review, few people in North America have

experience integrating environmental history and Heritage Appreciation in parks. The

environmental historians interviewed for this research study are “two of the few with this

experience. Their commentary and reflections revealed they experienced several issues

when working towards an integration of environmental history and H.A.

C2.1 Environmental History is Different and Unfamiliar

One environmental historian observed that one of the issues surrounding the

integration of environmental history and H.A. is that environmental history perspective is

very different and unfamiliar from the traditional “discipline-centred” perspective. This

observation is explained in the following statement:

You have to approach environmental history differently. It is not a discreet

discipline…if you will – as political history, or doing a biography of pioneers, or

urban history. You have to range very widely – it’s all kinds of disciplines that 102

are not historical and you have to draw that together from an historical

perspective, which is very different. (Yogi, August 27, 2003)

In the above comment, it is suggested environmental history is different because it presents a more holistic and interdisciplinary perspective than most people are accustomed to compiling. According to this environmental historian, unfamiliarity with such a perspective makes doing environmental history difficult. Yogi further notes “it’s very tough and I don’t claim to have done it, but I certainly understand how hard it is to do it.” He goes on to suggest that one of the reasons that environmental history has not been adopted more widely in the parks system is because:

it is extremely challenging to understand any of this – let alone interpret it to

anyone who has no background in any of it – that’s the real problem. In fact, that

is the problem and that’s the problem that needs to be addressed. And I don’t

think it’s happening…I really don’t…Can it happen? Sure it can….better than it

is….it needs to be done. (Yogi, August 27, 2003)

Yogi acknowledges that doing and presenting environmental history is difficult and that the uniqueness of the holistic environmental history perspective makes it challenging to interpret to those who are unfamiliar with it. However, he also suggests that it can be done and, more importantly, that it “needs to be done”. In the following comment, he elaborates on this need to accept the challenge of doing environmental history:

Every time we struggle with these things we get a little closer – because there’s

no answer. What became very apparent to me is that there are so many absolute

fundamentals that we do not understand – and I don’t mean as historians….I mean

the biologist does not understand “x” sufficiently to be able to plug that piece in 103

definitively. Now you take that and multiply it by 15 disciplines – or however

many that you need- and you’ve got a real challenge ahead of you…and it doesn’t

bother me….I think that in trying to meet the challenge, we get closer to an

accurate picture and that’s what really matters because interpretation has always

changed and it always will. It doesn’t simply rely on knowledge either – we live

in a time when there hasn’t been more emphasis on environmental awareness –

and that’s a wonderful thing – but there’s a social element that is driving a need

for this as well. People are insatiable about this stuff. There’s almost a social

obligation to meet that challenge. I see that every day. (Yogi, August 27, 2003)

Although it is suggested that there is a “social obligation” to present the environmental history perspective, it is not considered to be an easy obligation to fulfil.

C2.3 Culture of Denial & Pre-Organised Opposition

Smokey recounts several examples where societal values themselves have acted

as obstacles to the integration of the environmental history perspective into H.A.

programming. He suggests “we’re part of a culture that’s in complete denial of anything

that stands in the way of their immediate self interests or profit” (Smokey, July 6, 2003).

Later in the interview, he recounts how this cultural problem has presented challenges to

his work as an environmental historian. He says:

The extension of this vein of denial has really been exposed in the Water

Initiative. The water is disappearing in front of our eyes and people refuse to

believe it – they still think that there’s lots of water. You tell them that in one

generation we’ve gone from a country that was internationally proud of the fact 104

that we could drink water out of any of our sparkling streams, rivers or lakes to a

country that is terrified about water quality and availability issues – people don’t

believe it. And you tell people that, for example, the Bow glacier is receding and

that in 30 years, it may recede to such an extent that the flow of the Bow in late

season could be significantly reduced and that the river could become a spring

creek and they tell you “we don’t believe you!?” (Smokey, July 6, 2003)

The water initiative that Smokey refers to is a H.A. initiative. Smokey’s comments suggest that societal opinions and attitudes such as a “culture of denial” are issues associated with the integration of the environmental history perspective and public H.A. programming.

Smokey also suggests there is an organised “resistance” to messages associated with ecological/environmental history. He explains it this way:

[One of the] problems in managing ecological history, is that there’s a transcribe

out there in the already established adversarial tradition between

environmentalists and those with self-interested agenda who are using very

common, very simple, very fundamental public relations techniques to neutralise

the validity, authenticity, and argument of anybody who feels in any way

oppositional to the status quo that in any way is concerned with what they see

before their very eyes. A formal, active and aggressive system of dismissal exists

in the west today that is going to make environmental history hard to sell on a

general basis until further catastrophe makes people seriously concerned about the

fact that landscapes are changing at a rate faster than we can adapt to them.

(Smokey, July 6, 2003) 105

In summary, Smokey identified two issues related to the integration of environmental history and H.A. that are external to Parks itself: a culture of denial and “pre-organised” opposition to environmental messages and messages that challenge the status quo. The interviewees also highlighted other, more internal, issues they experienced when attempting to integrate the environmental history perspective into H.A. programming.

C2.4 Discipline-Centred Perspectives of Park Managers

In addition to the aforementioned culture of denial, organised resistance and the

simple feeling that environmental history is difficult to do, the environmental historians

interviewed suggested that another issue they confronted was the “discipline-based

perspectives”, or “trained incapacities”, of park staff. In reflecting on challenges he has

experienced integrating environmental history in Parks, Yogi explained:

Parks staff tend to be…each of them tends to have a discipline – which is

perfectly understandable. But they have that perspective to the extent that it tends

to do away with all other perspectives; to reduce them to something of very little

consequence or very little importance. (Yogi, August 27, 2003)

Yogi suggests that, while it is “understandable” for Parks staff to have a discipline-based

perspective, it becomes problematic when it interferes with presenting a broad

perspective to the public. He explains this issue in more detail in the following comment:

If someone happens to be an expert on grizzlies, that’s the perspective that comes

to the table despite the fact that that person is now a parks superintendent who is

theoretically in charge of the whole ball of wax and should be bringing all of

those perspectives to bear…but the person can’t because that isn’t their 106

perspective. I’ve worked on literally dozens of projects where we’ve made all

kinds of planning recommendations – broader than interpretation, but that being

part of the general planning process – where none of it was ever implemented

because it didn’t fit within their view of what a park should be. (Yogi, August 27,

2003)

Yogi’s reflection highlights the idea that park staff, with an inability to see beyond their

“discipline”, can be problematic for the integration of environmental history and H.A. because they can “block” the integration of the “broad perspective” typically associated with environmental history

Discipline-based perspectives, a culture of denial and the difficulty of doing

environmental history are all considered to be issues related to the integration of environmental history and H.A. Associated with these issues was an emphasis on the need for appropriate leadership to successfully integrate the environmental history with

H.A. programming.

C2.5 The Need for Appropriate Leadership

The kind of leadership required to integrating environmental history with H.A.

programming was described by one of the environmental historians interviewed in the

following comment:

It has to begin with someone who can bring all of the right disciplines to the table

and that’s not necessarily one person per project, or however you want to look at

it, it’s simply having the right skills at the table. That may be a table full of 107

people, but that integrated team of disciplines bearing down on whatever theme it

is you want to tell people about. (Yogi, August 27, 2003)

The above comment highlights the need for a leader who is able to bring the right disciplines together and who has the skills to focus those diverse individuals on a common theme. The leader(s) also needs to have “a different perspective…the ability to stand back from [their] own bias” (Yogi, August 27, 2003). This idea is expanded upon in the following statement:

I think the solution is being open to a much broader perspective as a manager and

making sure that that philosophy is understood by everyone down the line so that

everyone feels comfortable contributing what they can – which is often very good

stuff – and then to consolidate that into the right kind of package. I think that if

you take that kind of approach, you have a very different body of information to

convey to the public and a staff that knows they have the permission to do it…and

all of a sudden, you have different interpretation going on. Which is self

perpetuating….like anything else, we learn to do it. (Yogi, August 27, 2003)

Leadership qualities thought to facilitate the integration of environmental history and

H.A. include openness to a broader perspective at the management level and inclusion of all individuals involved in H.A. at the park level.

Another important element of leadership, which interviewees suggested would help facilitate the integration of H.A. and environmental history, was humility. Yogi explained, “you have to understand that you don’t have all the answers to all the questions that need to be answered and you have to be comfortable enough with giving 108 away power” (Yogi, August 27, 2003). Along a similar vein, another environmental historian offered the following comments:

It seems to me that if you want to have a big influence, you have to recognise that

there are others who are influencing visitors besides yourselves in and around the

park and I often think that to validate them…the interpretation of others as a bona

fide extension of your own communication’s ambitions - you have to accept it

despite their youth or lack of experience of scientific training that others may

have to be cultivated as equals who through careful mentorship can ultimately

become peers. (Smokey, July 6, 2003)

The above comment indicates that appropriate leadership requires humility as well as the extension of H.A. management ideals beyond parks into the community itself.

In summary, the environmental historians interviewed suggest that appropriate leadership (or a lack thereof) is an issue related to the integration of the environmental history perspective and H.A. in Parks. Leadership qualities thought to be appropriate for the integration of environmental history and H.A. included: being open to broad perspectives, an ability to stand-back from personal biases, a desire to integrate the perspectives and skills of all staff members, humility, and an extension of H.A. ideals into the local communities.

109

Chapter V

Discussion

Assessing how environmental history could influence Heritage Appreciation

(H.A.) in Dinosaur Provincial Park (DPP) required a thorough and critical examination of current H.A. programming and its ability to meet Park mandates. Due to recent changes in agency-level mandates, there was, at the time of this study, a particular emphasis on the ability of programming to promote ecological citizenship. Answering the research question also required an analysis of how environmental history could alter current programming and affect its ability to promote ecological citizenship. The following discussion will illustrate that, through its emphasis on the interconnectedness between

“human” and “natural” worlds, environmental history can improve the ability of H.A. programming in DPP to promote ecological citizenship. Moreover, this discussion will illustrate that environmental history is suited to assist Heritage Presenters in DPP promote ecological citizenship because it is the product of theme-based narratives grounded in a larger sense of time, interdisciplinary knowledge, and systems thinking.

Environmental history is also conducive to supporting community initiatives and facilitates the development of sense of place.

Current Programming at DPP and Park Mandates

Interview data illustrated managers and interpreters perceived visitors were leaving DPP with six primary messages. When these messages are compared with the corresponding natural and cultural heritage “themes and concepts”, it becomes clear that, at least from the perspective of interviewees, current H.A. programming successfully 110 communicates the messages the programs were designed to deliver. A critical analysis of these messages, in comparison with site level mandates, reveals they coincide with the mandate of providing visitors with opportunities to explore and understand their natural and cultural heritage. There is also evidence to suggest programming is successful as a management tool.

Wolfe (1997) noted that, after the introduction of guided tours into the natural preserve, the number of people apprehended for “illegally” entering the preserve was reduced by over 90 per cent. One of the interviewees also provided an example from his experience at the Park suggesting H.A. programming was successful in encouraging visitors to respect and obey DPP regulations. Winnie recounted a story about an individual [Visitor A] who had been to an evening interpretive program at DPP, which discussed the ecological problems associated with digging up cactus in the park. He explained the rest of the story in the following way:

[Visitor A] was leaving the park and [Visitor B] was pulled over digging some

[cactus] up. They [Visitor A] looked around, went back to the office - they

couldn’t find a ranger, so they went back. The person who was digging was just

getting ready to leave, so this other person [Visitor A] drove their car into the

ditch to block them so that they couldn’t get out. They then appealed to the next

person to get to the ranger. They held them in place – basically, under arrest. The

ranger came and sure enough…there they were. They were that motivated to do

that! (Winnie, July 31, 2003)

The above story provides field level evidence that H.A. programming at DPP can be effective management tool. Another manager noted, “we are [not] seeing quite as many 111 people bring in fossils to the front desk as [we did] when I first came here in 1992”

(Dino, September 4, 2003). Although this manager feels that interpretation has improved visitor adherence to park regulations (prohibiting the picking up of fossils), he also explains there are not “any hard and fast numbers to say that – it just seems to be that the word is finally getting across” (Dino, September 4, 2003). Obtaining “hard and fast” numbers to suggest interpretation can increase visitor compliance with ark regulations was the purpose of Butler’s (1980) study. While the study was not done at DPP, it was conducted at another park in the Alberta PPAs network and, therefore, has some merit to this discussion. Results of this study, in combination with relevant literature, suggest it is likely that current programming in DPP is helpful as a management tool. Having said this, however, it would sill require more research to conclude that current programming at DPP is an effective management tool.

Of more significance to this study is the discovery that the themes and concepts at

DPP do not match with the agency mandate to promote ecological citizenship. Interview results indicate that all interviewees feel the promotion of ecological citizenship is the ultimate purpose or goal of H.A. programming, but none of them suggested that current programming achieves this goal. One manager noted that he hoped programming at DPP would “move to that level in the future” but went on to state that how DPP “gets there…remains to be seen” (Dino, September, 2003). Interpreters noted visitors got

“excited” (Edna, August 19, 2003) and were often “inspired”(Hariet, August 23, 2003) by programming but that they did not leave with a “tool box…to protect the environment”

(Hariet) or a “feeling that they should do something” (Edna). A desire to “do something,”

“take action” or “get involved” is one of the primary components of ecological 112 citizenship (Capra, 1999; Cuthbertson & Curthroys, 2002; McClaren, 1995; Sanger,

1997; van Matre, 1999). If H.A. programming at DPP is to achieve the agency mandate to promote ecological citizenship, the themes and concepts around which programs are organised need to be revised. The challenge is to ensure these new themes and concepts are grounded in a perspective conducive to the promotion of ecological citizenship.

Environmental history can be the answer to providing this perspective.

The Interconnectedness of “Human” and “Natural” Worlds

As previously explained, environmental history is grounded in the understanding

that the “human” and “natural” worlds are, and always have been, interconnected. This is the perspective researchers agree needs to be adopted to promote ecological literacy and/or ecological citizenship (Capra, 1999; Cuthbertson & Curthroys, 2002; McClaren,

1995; Puk, 2002; Sanger, 1997). Interestingly, all but two of the individuals interviewed supported this perspective. Unfortunately, despite the fact that interviewees do not think there should be a separation between “nature” and “culture”, current programming is, for the most part, divided along those lines. One interpreter explained “DPP has this extreme separation happening in its programming - you’re either talking about natural history or you’re talking about cultural history” (Nettie, August 30, 2003). Based on this comment, and the fact that it was supported by a critical review of program scripts and comments from several other interpreters, makes it appear that, as one environmental historian suspected, current H.A. programming at DPP is “almost interpretation by discipline”

(Yogi, August 27, 2003). 113

When asked about the kind of information needed at DPP to promote ecological citizenship, one of the interpreters gave the following response:

[We need] information that describes specific tactics so you can…give people that

broader picture. So what you do on your programs above and beyond must [be]

delivering that information and they say “so what?”…This is the message…This

is why you should care about this….this is why you should care that DPP was

created by glacial melt water. Or else people are going to say “oh cool,” but that

has no relevance to me – then they’re not “heritagely appreciating [sic]” it.

(Hariet, August, 2003)

The above comment highlights the need for people to understand how they connect as individuals and/or communities to the natural history information presented at DPP.

Eleven of the 14 people interviewed suggested it was important for people to understand the “big picture” when they come to a park like DPP. Environmental history could be the tool that would help help interpreters provide people with this understanding by bridging the “nature-culture” divide that makes it possible to leave people out of the “natural” world. As it turns out, truly understanding the big picture is really the crux of the problem. As noted by one interpreter:

The big picture is always important, but I think it often gets forgotten. [I]

think that people are scared to present the big picture…(pause) ….It’s not that it is

controversial, but I think people [interpreters] have trouble understanding the big

picture. (Nettie, August, 2003).

The notion that interpreters have a difficult time understanding the “big picture” or how to connect people and nature is not surprising. Indeed, as described in the literature 114 review, understanding the “big picture” requires interdisciplinary learning. Most educational institutions - including the ones that interpreters and managers attended - do not provide an education conducive to understanding issues from an interdisciplinary perspective (Barney, August 21, 2003; Capra, 1999; Conrad & Carrier, 2000; Edna,

August 19, 2003; Heinze-Fry, 1997; Hemingway, 1999; Nettie, August, 2003; Russell,

Bell & Fawcett, 2000; Tudge, 1996; van Matre, 1999).

When asked how the situation at DPP could be improved, one of the environmental historians offered the following advice:

Better information…Most of the interpretive staff in parks are seasonal…not all

of them, but most of them. You can’t expect somebody to walk into a position

and become an expert on everything…I mean nothing works that way. So the

only solution…if that’s the word for it, is to ensure that they learn their script, if

you will, from materials that are broadly based. (Yogi, August 27, 2003)

At the present time, scripts are based on information from a number of different disciplines, but linkages and/or relationships between information provided by these disciplines are not established. What is striking is that parks have made so little use of environmental history to date (Louter, 2003; Opie, 1985). This is striking because environmental historians write narratives that blend nature and culture. More pertinently, environmental history narratives offer the big picture perspective that managers and interpreters have identified as being absent in DPP. As described by Yogi:

when it’s [environmental history] done right, it is a holistic approach to many of

the themes and topics that normally come up in parks. It is probably one of the

very few and maybe the only discipline out there that does that - that tries to 115

incorporate all of these major perspectives but still tries to present one major

theme at the end of the day. If there are other ones, I don’t know what they are.

(Yogi, August 27, 2003)

The view that environmental history can be of use to parks specifically because of the fact that it stresses the “holistic” inter-relationship between culture and nature is supported by both Louter (2003) and Worster (2001); it is also supported by Smokey, the other environmental historian interviewed for this research study. He stated that:

Ecological [environmental] history….ties very directly into what I think Heritage

Appreciation will be. It is the evolution of landscapes [and] the evolution of the

biological elements that compose [those landscapes] and how those elements have

affected, defined and ultimately shaped the types of cultures that have emerged on

[the planet]. Part of that history is the gradual disassociation from those

things…hence the crucial need for heritage appreciation to move into the domain

of ecological history as a way of defining how landscape evolution and nature

have defined us as a people and as a future. (Smokey, July 6, 2003)

As demonstrated by the above comments, people who are familiar with environmental history understand how it bridges the “nature-culture” divide and illustrates the connection that people and cultures have with a given place. This is the kind of connection that is currently missing in DPP and probably most other parks as well. In reflecting on the difficulty of presenting the big picture, one of the interpreters noted,

“there’s nothing that puts everything together for everybody – it’s something that you have to figure out for yourself – which is a pretty big concept to figure out” (Nettie,

August 30, 2003). This comment is not entirely true. Understanding the big picture is 116 definitely a “big concept to figure out”, but there is something that puts it together. That something is environmental history.

A Larger Sense of Time

One of the key characteristics that enables environmental history to present the big picture and to bridge “nature” and “culture” is the fact that its narratives are

constructed around a larger sense of time (Louter, 2003; Tudge, 1996). Given that DPP

inherently deals on time scales of millions and/or tens of thousands of years, it could be

suggested that programming already adopts a larger sense of time. Indeed, in some ways

this is true. However, the challenge current programming faces is making the past

relevant to the present. As noted by one interpreter:

Why should people care about dinosaur bones – the dinosaurs are extinct!

They’re dead! They’re gone! Why should we care about that? Why is that

scientifically, culturally and ecologically important? I think that link is definitely

missing here…because right now, I couldn’t give you an answer. (Hariet, August

23, 2003)

The question about why people should care about dinosaurs is a difficult one to answer,

but answering it does seem particularly important at DPP. This is especially true when

one considers Sandford’s (2001) comment that “an informed sense of place requires that

what happened in a given place in the past has meaning in the present” (p.7). This is as

true of the deep past as it is of recent history. The development of a sense of place is

linked directly to the achievement of ecological citizenship (Capra, 1999; Sanger, 1996).

When Sandford’s comment is considered with respect to DPP, it becomes evident that 117

Hariet’s questions about why dinosaurs are scientifically, culturally and ecologically important need answers. Indeed, if dinosaurs have no contemporary meaning, the ability of H.A. programming to promote the development of sense of place and/or ecological citizenship is crippled.

Although information and theories concerning the social, cultural and ecological significance of dinosaurs does exist, it is not included in DPP’s Interpretative Training

Manual. One writer/palaeontologist, who has theorised about the human fascination with dinosaurs and why they are important, explains that our fascination is linked to our interest in the future of humanity and the fact that dinosaurs were one of the most successful life-forms on the planet (Russell, 1989). Phil Currie, a palaeontologist from the Royal Tyrrell Museum, suggests dinosaur studies also give us an historical understanding of the world, which helps to keep our own position in nature in perspective. He also suggests dinosaur studies give us a better understanding of why things are they way they are now (Phil Currie, personal communication January 23,

2004). Wilford (1985) provided a more philosophical explanation of the reason for our fascination with dinosaurs. In The Riddle of the Dinosaur, he explained, “in our exploration of time, we have driven down a highway and searched under the junipers for some dinosaur bones and come face to face with ourselves” (p. 69). If an environmental history of DPP were completed, it would draw upon the ideas expressed by Currie and

Russell to help describe the contemporary relevance of dinosaurs. In doing so, environmental history would connect the ancient past and the present (Worster, 2001).

One of the messages that environmental history communicates is that “human beings have, in the end, been shaped by the world itself. Unless this planet had behaved 118 in particular ways at a particular time in the history of our own lineage, we would not have come into being” (Tudge, 1996, p.25). At the present time, this message is not included in any programs at the Park. According to Yogi (August 27, 2003), the successful communication of the fact that humans have been shaped by “natural forces” would help “drop the egos we all have as human beings and…[help us to] understand that ultimately, we’re just another species.” Coupled with an understanding of our unparalleled ability to influence the world we live in (for better and for worse), the promotion of this kind of understanding can help people comprehend their interconnection with nature and realise that we all are responsible for protecting ecological and cultural integrity.

Due to its adoption of a wider sense of time, environmental history could improve the ability of Heritage presenters at DPP to explain the concept of ecological change to the public. Contemplating ecological change is something that visitors to DPP are almost forced to confront. Indeed, DPP is probably one of the parks most conducive to exposing people to the reality of significant ecological change. When asked how environmental history could be of use to DPP, Smokey gave the following response:

…you’ve got a snapshot into a completely different geological era – it’s like

opening box after box and you’ve got the most amazing and incredible things in

each one of these from a different era. You’re standing on the present and as you

go down it’s all about subsequent successive ecological realities and changes. I

think Dinosaur [Provincial Park] is unique – there’s a different ecological reality

[that] is part of a long continual ecological history that leads us to ask questions

about how vulnerable life is today and what sorts of circumstances and situations 119

we have created for ourselves that we have to respond to and be conscious of.

(Smokey, July 6, 2003)

The above comment suggests DPP would be an ideal place to illustrate ecological change because people are literally standing on it or in front of it.

Some managers also supported the notion that parallels could be made between ancient ecological change and current ecological change at DPP. Barney, for example, spoke about tours at Cypress Hills Provincial Park that attempted to “convey the different environments in recent times and the linking of the Cypress Hills of today to environments of the past and climate change and how that affect things and so on”

(Barney, August 21, 2003). When asked whether the same kind of messaging would be appropriate at DPP, Barney gave the following response: “Yeah, you guys have past environments too and the examples of further back than 7000 years, but yeah…same kind of thing” (Barney, August 21, 2003). Another manager suggested DPP “is certainly a shining example of that [environmental] change.” He went on to explain how past ecological changes can be linked to the present:

Maybe over millions of years, or thousands of years, or maybe over hundreds of

years, we may be facing environmental change, so I think we can give people a

window of the past to compare to the present. Maybe we can even make some

projections into the future in that respect. (Dino, September 4, 2003)

Based on the above comment, and those made by Smokey and Barney, there is clearly a recognition that DPP is in a unique position to help people make linkages between historic and current ecological changes. At the present time, however, this message has yet to be communicated clearly in H.A. programs at the park. 120

Environmental historians could help the park communicate this message because they are accustomed to delving into the ecological history of an area to understand the present (Louter, 2003; Stewart, 1998; Tudge, 1996; Worster, 1979). This point was made by one of the environmental historians interviewed in the following comment:

History has largely been interpreted and seen as static. One of the things that has

to be done is to see that history has a direction and flow…and not to see that is

sort of like looking across a river and not noticing that the water is moving….

we’re living in a period when so much of the ground on which these things

[national identity, human settlements] were established is changing that the most

important history…is the ecological history of the landscapes. I think that as

changes continue to occur at rates that are hard to adjust and adapt to, that

ecological history will be even more important than we can begin to imagine.

(Smokey, July 6, 2003)

Smokey’s comment highlights the fact that, at the present time, the very landscapes our lives are built and dependent upon are changing rapidly. Some of these changes are human induced. Understanding the role of humans in those changes, and indeed

“ecological change” in and of itself, is a cornerstone of environmental history (Louter,

2003; Reich, 2001; Tudge, 1996; Worster, 2001). By adopting a wider perspective of time and making links between ourselves, and past and present ecological changes, H.A. programming will be more suited to promoting ecological literacy (Capra, 1999;

McClaren, 1995; Sanger, 1996; Smith, 1992).

There is also another, more contemporary, historical dimension that environmental history could bring to H.A. programming at DPP. An environmental 121 history of the Park would not just connect visitors with the ancient past but also with the more recent cultural history. Historically, the Blackfoot and Cree viewed the unique landscape littered with giant bones badlands as the dwelling place of spirits (Gross, 1998;

Reid, 1994). Although people have rarely lived in the badlands, now protected in DPP, it is a place that has been visited and admired for over 4,500 years. There are over 500 tipi rings on the Prairie level that are within the park boundary, several vision quest sites and a stone effigy figure (Dormaar, 1990; Gross, 1998). All of these sites, with the exception of some of the tipi rings, are not located in areas that park visitors can easily access – this is probably a good thing. It is important to note, however, that a lack of access to these sites should not restrict H.A. programmers from connecting visitors to this part of the

Park’s history.

At the present time, very little is shared about the connections between culture and the landscape of DPP in H.A. programming. This point is made by one of the interpreters in the following comment:

we don’t talk a lot about the cultural history of DPP. That’s one of my favourite

things about the alternate bus tour- we get to go up to the tipi ring at the viewpoint

and we can talk about it – the first people who were here…. Even if you talk

about the cultural history of dinosaur, you can bring in why the Blackfoot stayed

on the prairie and didn’t come down into the badlands – it’s because of the natural

environment – it’s all linked to their environment. Things that we are doing today

are all linked to our environment. (Gertrude, September 1, 2003)

The message that everything is linked to our environment is one that environmental historians are adept at communicating. One of the ways they communicate this message 122 is by linking “cultural” history and “natural” history throughout time (Tudge, 1996;

Worster, 1988). As previously noted by Smokey, environmental history presents history as a continuum, so that what happened in the past has meaning in the present. Instead of simply presenting history as snapshots of particular eras (e.g. pre-Native history, Native history, European history), environmental history addresses it all together so a more holistic picture is communicated.

An environmental history would communicate that the landscape of DPP was, and still is, a sacred place to the Blackfoot and Cree, a the place of exploration and discovery for late 19th and 20th Century explorers and scientists, and the place of inspiration and

pride for generations of park visitors. Although stories of some of the first fossil hunters

in the Red Deer River Valley colour many of the park narratives, the history of the

creation of the park itself is left out of H.A. programming at DPP. Consequently, the

story communicated to park visitors is incomplete.

Systems Thinking

Systems thinking is an integral aspect of promoting the development of ecological

citizenship. The benefit of systems thinking is that it emphasises understanding patterns

and mapping how everything is connected to everything else (Aronson, 1996; Capra,

1999). When I asked one of the interpreters I interviewed what helped her to understand

how everything was connected to everything else, she recalled the following story, which

is representative of “systems thinking:

I think what really helped me was teaching to students in ___ [name withheld]

because that’s one thing that eco-ed tried to do – present the big picture…One 123

thing that we always focused on – the very first thing we teach on the very first

part of the morning is that “environment is everything”. We used to put up a big

board describing everything that comes from our environment. We would ask the

kids “what does the environment mean to you?” And the kids would say: “oh, it

means, trees and lakes and bears….” So we’d draw that into the picture. Then

we’d ask if the environment was used for anything else and they’d say “Oh, we

cut down the trees to make paper.” Anyway…we’d just connect everything from

the natural world back into our lifestyle… (Nettie, August 30, 2003)

The above description of drawing links between trees, logging and paper is exemplary of systems thinking. What can be inferred from the above comment is that at least one interpreter working at the park had familiarity with what Aaronson (1996) calls “systems thinking. She is aware of systems thinking to the extent that she understands how drawing links between things like trees and paper helps people to understand how interconnected the world is.1 Despite experience with the technique, this interpreter did

not apply it to her interpretation at DPP. Although I did not ask her why, it can be

surmised that the systems perspective did not fit with the programming at the Park

because it is so focused by discipline. However, if environmental history was adopted

into H.A. programming at the Park, it could help interpreters to see issues from a systems

perspective.

Environmental historians are always trying to make connections between events

to illustrate that everything is connected to everything else (Stewart, 1998; Hughes,

2001). A good example is Worster’s (1979) explanation of the Southern Plains drought

1 None of the other interviewees inferred to systems thinking, however, it should be emphasised that none of them were asked about it either. 124 in his book Dust Bowl. Worster (1979) draws on climatological data to illustrate the fact that droughts are a normal occurrence on the plains. After making this point clear, he proceeds to explain how culture and, specifically, capitalism and the farming techniques used by American farmers, “created the dust bowl” (Worster, 1979, p.94). The reader is left understanding that when regular drought cycles were combined with densely settled land, intense tilling techniques, and a focus on increasing productivity (capitalism), an especially severe drought became an ecological disaster.

To date, DPP and its managers and interpreters do not use systems thinking to understand issues. However, Alberta Parks is known to have a Systems Plan

(Swinnerton, 1993), which shares some connections with systems thinking. On the surface, Alberta Parks’ Systems Plan simply emphasises the importance of protecting

Alberta’s representative natural regions and recognises “parks as components within a mosaic of protected areas” (Swinnerton, 1993, p.111). A concise summary of the representative natural areas and the “spectrum of protection/use” in each of the areas in the Alberta PPA’s system can be found in the public document Alberta’s Parks and

Protected Areas: it’s in our nature! (Alberta Parks, 2002).

One of the connections between PPA’s Systems Plan and systems thinking is that it emphasises the need to develop better connections amongst Provincial Parks and/or similar sites. One manager explains this idea in the following paragraph:

From a systems perspective, we are part of a protected areas network. Right now,

we fly the UN flag and we have a couple of token pictures in our display area of

other sites, but there really isn’t a place to deliver the message that there really is

a world-wide effort going on here…we have had very site-specific interpretation 125

up until now. The challenge will be to not necessarily back off on site-specific

information, but still integrate provincial, national and international messages.

That would be a dream of mine; to much more strongly demonstrate the

international [connection]…Just so people realise that as important as the stuff is

that we do here, we are a piece of a much larger puzzle (Dino, September 4,

2003).

All of the other managers made similar remarks. Some interpreters also thought it would be important to “tell people about other World Heritage Sites” (Gertrude, Sept. 1, 2003) and/or to make “more connections between Dinosaur and other parks” (Norm, July 17,

2003). In addition, one environmental historian explained the importance of making connections between DPP and other sites by saying:

We need to stop looking at them as individual isolated parks and really start to

think of them as crystals – fine representative examples of the larger region in

which they exist and begin to take more of a bioregional approach to seeing the

province and seeing the west – and get past boundary scenarios…I think that

comes back to our tendency to isolate and compartmentalise this park and say that

“that’s what we say there” and everything quits once you walk outside the park

boundary. (Smokey, July 6, 2003)

In the above comment, Smokey suggests that, by seeing parks as part of a larger bioregional network, it will be easier for people to understand the Park and its messages, which have meaning beyond its boundaries.

Connecting parks into bioregions ultimately involves adopting what Capra (1999) and Aronson (1996) call systems thinking. Given that park managers and interpreters 126 support this method of thinking, it seems that they are half-way there. The challenge is getting parks like DPP to realise or apply the systems thinking approach - not just to talk about it. This is another area where environmental history can help.

Environmental history narratives, because they are informed by ecology naturally make the leap beyond arbitrary boundary lines (e.g. park boundaries) into the local bio- region and, in some cases, into the global community (Diamond, 1999; Sale, 1991;

Stewart, 1998). Therefore, if environmental histories of parks like DPP were written, they would naturally extend beyond the park boundaries and, in so doing, would provide interpreters and managers with the systems connections needed to promote ecological citizenship.

A Community Approach

According to Capra (1999), the promotion of ecological literacy and/or ecological

citizenship is enhanced through the adoption of a community approach to learning. Most

literature on ecological literacy focuses on the classroom, but there is no reason why H.A.

programming in DPP and other parks cannot extend into local and/or regional

communities. This opinion was shared by all of the managers interviewed, one of the

environmental historians and a few of the park interpreters. More specifically, Alberta

Parks has “identified community outreach as a major priority” (Bam Bam, July 30, 2003).

Another manager explained the corporate reasoning behind this decision to offer more

community outreach programming:

If we’re relying only on the people who come to the park to receive our message,

or maybe visit our web site, we’re missing a lot of Albertans. So, the thought in 127

the last year or two…was that we have to take parks out to the people. (Barney,

August 21, 2003)

Taking the parks to the people is a stark contrast to historic ideas about the role of parks.

Indeed, one of the more famous park-related quotations virtually states the opposite. The first President of the CPR, William van Horne, made the following proclamation in 1888 regarding Banff: “if we can’t export the scenery, we’ll import the people!” Therefore, it is clear that taking the parks to the people is a diametrically opposite shift in this historic philosophy.

According to managers and interpreters, exporting the parks to the people can happen in numerous ways. Barney provided a summary of some of the recent community outreach initiatives some parks have undertaken in the following comment:

Don Denhoed has been doing some programming in the winter at Kananaskis

Country and taking the programs to some schools in Calgary. I’ve been talking

about doing that kind of thing [at XYZ park]. What else…Fish Creek did a series

of guest speakers … For example, I went in and gave a talk on [XYZ park] – I

had about 100 pretty keen and interested people. I’m sure there’s other ways we

can do that too, but part of it is programming – getting it out into our

communities…Dinosaur and Writing on Stone are in the same position. (Barney,

August 21, 2003)

From the above comment, it becomes clear that some individuals involved with Alberta

Parks have already begun to initiate community outreach programming. These initiatives are part of new agency goals. Although DPP has not yet been involved in things like a speaker series, it should be noted that, this fall, Herptile Heroes, one of the amphitheatre 128 shows presented at the park as part of its regular programming, was exported to a local school as a pilot project. During one of the interviews, an interpreter also informed me that DPP has had an “edu-kit” prepared for several years. When I asked if the kit had ever been sent to schools, Nettie (August 30, 2003) said, “It’s supposed to go up this fall!

All the information is done and the activities are finished, it just needs props – like casts of fossils.” The “edu-kit” was described as a “huge box that has a whole bunch of samples of materials…and little activities that can be incorporated into the [provincial education] curriculum”(Nettie, August 30, 2003).

Given the fact that a lack of money was cited as an obstacle to changing H.A. programming in Alberta Parks, and that the preceding community outreach programs inevitably cost Parks some money in wages and in material, it is worth commenting about cost-recovery possibilities. Originally, school programs offered through Kananaskis

Country were offered at no cost to the schools. Over the past two years, however, they began charging for them and this resulted in a surprising response. One of the managers explains:

Ironically, when it was delivered for free, it seems that schools didn’t respond as

energetically as they did when they started charging $200/day for their program.

That was a completely unexpected result. (Bam Bam, July 30, 2003)

Bam Bam’s comment highlights an interesting point concerning the extension of H.A. programming into communities - namely that it could be economically self-sufficient if a charge were associated with it. Moreover, there is a psychological value attached to price. At times, if something is offered for a fee, it is assumed to be of higher quality than something that is offered for free. This is an important point to remember when one 129 considers the financial instability that has plagued the Alberta Parks and protected areas in recent years.

There is considerable support for community outreach H.A. programming at DPP and other Alberta Parks. That said, it is important to stress that, if the programming that

Parks brings into the community maintains the park-centred perspective and the disciplinary divisions that plague current programming, they will inevitably experience similar challenges in promoting ecological citizenship. One of the interpreters interviewed commended Kananaskis Country’s school programs, but also expressed some concern about them. She explained:

I think that it’s a good idea in essence, but I think that the K-country shows in

particular are so specific to K-country – without the kids actually going to K-

country and experiencing the park, how is that actually doing anything? – I don’t

know….Same thing with DPP. Unless you’re doing a program more about the

ideas of the park that doesn’t actually talk about the specifics of the park…[kids

won’t relate]. (Hariet, August 23, 2003)

Hariet’s comment highlights the notion that a park-specific program is not going to have a lot of meaning outside the park – especially if the people attending the program have never been, and may never be able to, get to the Park.

As identified earlier, programming at DPP is currently very site-specific. To be relevant to a community or classroom audience, park programming must be grounded in a wider context. Environmental history can help managers and presenters understand what this wider context is. Smokey makes this point in the following comment: 130

…the concepts of establishing sense of place that are the foundation of

interpretation must expand outward from interpretive programs to become the

basis of how a community articulates who and what it is. (Smokey, July 6, 2003)

The concepts of establishing sense of place are virtually synonymous with the process of developing ecological citizenship. Perhaps outreach programming, which uses environmental history to explain how parks fit into the broader picture, is the link needed for H.A. programming to promote sense of place. At the minimum, the adoption of an environmental history perspective will help ensure community outreach programming encourages people to understand parks are not, and cannot, exist as “protected islands” while everything around them “goes to hell in a hand cart” (Dino, September 4, 2003).

Integrating Environmental History and H.A. at DPP: Prospects and Potential Challenges

As established previously, none of the interpreters or managers (save one) had

knowledge of environmental history prior to the interviews. The only manager who had

prior knowledge of the field of study considered it to be synonymous with “cultural

ecology”. As explained by Mr. Slate, cultural ecology illustrates that “even pre-

historically…humans influence[d] the natural environment…[and that] there has always

been an interrelationship between human occupation and the environment in which both

were affected” (July 30, 2003). This definition fits with the accepted definition of

environmental history.

It is helpful to know that one manager is familiar with the environmental history

perspective and is supportive of “that perspective being brought to bear on heritage

interpretation in parks” (Mr. Slate, July 30, 2003). However, this knowledge does little 131 to deepen our understanding of how to apply environmental history in the field. Indeed, it is one thing to have theoretical support for an idea, but it is another thing to put it to work on the ground.

The primary question this study was designed to address is how environmental history could influence H.A. programming at DPP. It has already been established there is ample evidence to suggest environmental history could improve H.A. programming at

DPP. To improve the applicability of this study to H.A. in DPP, the prospects and potential challenges associated with the integration will now be discussed.

Interviews with interpreters and managers revealed that there are four primary issues related to change at DPP: financial restrictions, shifting politics, limited human resources, and fear of change. A lack of money and changing political priorities were mentioned as things that tended to destabilise H.A. programming and make it difficult to make decisions about the future. Indeed, it would be difficult to be pro-active about change when parks like DPP have been put in a situation where they have had little opportunity to do anything but be re-active to frequent department transfers and consistent funding cuts. One manager bluntly stated, “there is little that can be done right now until the economic situation turns around a bit and they get a firm handle on how they are going to deal with a sustainable health care system in the future" (Mr. Slate, July

30, 2003). Interestingly, another manager painted a more optimistic picture related to parks and future funding:

there has been new money that has come into the program because there has been

new positions established. In that respect, whether through a change of the

positions that may have been other functions or outright creation of new positions, 132

there has been an increase in budget – maybe not as much as everyone would like,

but there has been an increase in budget. And I think that over time, you will see

an increase in operating budget as well. As you well know, there is centennial

capital money set aside for new visitor centres. (Bam Bam, July 30, 2003)

The new positions Bam Bam is speaking of are H.A. specialist positions for several different parks across the province. Given that new money has just recently been allocated to parks for things like visitor centre improvements at DPP, Writing on Stone and Cypress Hills, and the fact that consulting companies have been hired to review H.A. programming at the these three sites, it seems the financial situation is improving. If

Bam Bam is correct and there will be an increase in the operating budget of parks in the future, the time may be ripe for change. Even if finances are not stabilising, it still may be a good time to introduce environmental history.

Attaching a dollar figure to the integration of environmental history and H.A. programming is beyond the scope of this study. What is important to understand here is that there are ways around the money issue. One of the interviewees made the following remarks regarding finances, interpretive programs and their costs:

People often blame money…but it isn’t that…one of the best interpretive

programs I’ve seen was on whales – some would say they need a $50,000 model

to explain everything, but this guy took some chalk and drew a ‘to scale’ drawing

of a blue whale on the black top and then we got in it…we drew a Volkswagen

car inside – which was the size of the heart of a blue whale and he did it right

there on the blacktop with chalk – it washed away the next time it rained. But

damn it: when you stood inside and walked from one side of the whale to the 133

other, or stood inside the Volkswagen car….you really started to get a sense for

how damned big this thing is and why there was never an animal on land that had

that size. The truth is that the creative people – all they need is room to move.

(Winnie, July 31, 2003)

The above comment begs us to consider whether creativity and “room to move” would be enough to integrate environmental history with H.A. programming and get beyond restrictions associated with finances and limited human resources. Based on Louter’s

(2003) experience integrating environmental history and National Park Management in the U.S., the answer to this question could be yes.

One of the creative ways environmental history has been integrated into park management in the U.S. is through partnerships with academic institutions. As a result of talks with park managers, and discussions with individuals from a variety of academic disciplines Richard White, an environmental historian at Stanford, started a seminar course. Louter (2003) explained the idea of the course “was to have students conduct research at the park, using it as their case study and working on topics relevant to park management. In doing so, they…produce[d] an archive of research” (Louter, 2003, p. 3).

A similar partnership could be made between Alberta Parks and a local academic institution like the University of Alberta. Instead of focusing on park management issues as they have done at Stanford, students in seminar classes could focus on producing a body of research that relates to H.A. themes at the given park. This would be a low-cost way of providing heritage presenters with environmental histories grounded in park themes. It would also help alleviate the problem that there are very few Canadian and/or

Alberta-related environmental histories written to date. 134

All of the interpreters interviewed mentioned that Park programs have not changed in a long time. It has already been established that interpreters and managers recognise that current programming does not promote ecological citizenship. This is one of the reasons why interpreters argued that programming needs to change (Edna, August

19, 2003; Nettie, August 30, 2003; Gertrude, Sept. 1, 2003; Hariet, August 23, 2003;

Norm, July 17, 2003). Several interpreters sensed that a fear of change was preventing programming alterations. Therefore, this fear of change will need to be addressed to ensure it does not impair the integration of an environmental history perspective into

H.A. programming.

Fear often occurs when we step outside our comfort zones into unfamiliar territory. As this study has illustrated, environmental history is unfamiliar territory to most people involved in H.A. management and presentation at DPP. One of the environmental historians interviewed remarked that, because it is so unfamiliar, “it is extremely challenging to…interpret it to anyone who has no background in any of it – that’s the real problem. In fact that is the problem” (Yogi, August 27, 2003). Therefore, it can be said that, if environmental history is going to be successfully integrated into

H.A. programming, the unfamiliar needs to be transformed into the familiar. Louter

(2003) accomplished this by having an environmental historian “discuss the topic of environmental history and the prospects of developing an environmental history with park staff” (p. 3). There were several meetings that took place and, in the end, park managers expressed an interest in incorporating environmental history into research and education programs. As a result, a co-operative venture with Stanford University was established. 135

The successful integration of environmental history and park management in the

U.S. National Park Service (NPS) was facilitated by the use of several creative leadership strategies that transformed the unfamiliar to the familiar. One of the strategies employed involved getting an environmental historian to meet with a group of park officials to talk about and describe environmental history. Richard White was the environmental historian selected and when he arrived at the park he met with park staff whose specialities covered a diverse range of disciplines – from biology and botany to management and geology (Louter, 2003). This strategy parallels leadership suggestions made by Yogi. He suggested that the process of integrating environmental history and parks “has to begin with someone who can bring all of the right disciplines to the table”

(August 27, 2003). Once the people are at the table, he suggested they “bear down on whatever theme it is you want to tell people about” (Yogi, August 27, 2003). Based on interview results like this from my study, it is clear that the same process, as undertaken by Richard White and the NPS, would have to occur in DPP in order to help managers and interpreters transcend their fear of the unknown.

Richard White used a theme to bring people together at the NPS. The theme he used was that “ecologists and historians had common interests and similar historical questions but different approaches to those questions” (Louter, 2003). The ecological foundation of environmental history was the very foundation that Mark (1996) criticised.

In the literature review, I suggested the use of ecology by environmental historians was more likely to be an argument for, rather than against, integrating it into the Park system.

Louter’s (2003) experience supports that assertion and reveals ecology can be used as the common ground to help connect environmental history and parks. 136

Richard White’s strategy of gathering people together to solve a particular problem helped to avoid disciplinary battles. Environmental history was not introduced as a superior discipline that could provide all the answers parks needed; instead, it was introduced as a partner that could help other disciplines (i.e. ecology) answer some challenging park management questions. An example of such a question is how a given landscape has changed through time and what role humans have played in that alteration and to what effect. Furthermore, while natural history and ecology are primarily concerned with human effects on changing landscapes, environmental history is at least as concerned with the reverse – the impact of changing environments on human societies through time.

Transcending disciplinary battles is important and it requires the leadership of someone who is “open to a much broader perspective as a manager” (Yogi, August 27,

2003). Throughout the interview process, I never had the feeling that those involved in park management or interpretation would reject environmental history as an additional tool for promoting H.A. Neither of the environmental historians I interviewed, nor

Louter (2003), have described any situations where those involved in parks have indicated that the environmental history perspective would be inappropriate in parks. In fact, when I asked one environmental historian if anyone had resisted or challenged his efforts to integrate the environmental history perspective into H.A. he stated, “I can’t think of anyone who has really resisted this” (Smokey, July 6, 2003).

Although no one involved in parks has overtly resisted the environmental history perspective, there is some evidence their disciplinary perspectives have. Indeed, Yogi

(August 27th, 2003) described several instances where the discipline-based perspective of 137 some park managers is so ingrained that “it tends to do away with all other perspectives

[or] to reduce them to something of very little consequence or very little importance”. It should be noted that managers might not be conscious of their disciplinary biases. As one interviewee describes, everyone has “trained incapacities” that make it challenging for people to incorporate or understand different disciplinary perspectives (Winnie, July

31, 2003). This is where environmental history can be of help. The experience environmental historians have with interdisciplinary research provides them with first- hand knowledge of the fact that “it is extremely challenging to understand [environmental history]” (Yogi, August 27, 2003). This knowledge is important because it will help them to be more sympathetic to the learning process that park managers and interpreters will inevitably encounter when trying to grasp the meaning, breadth and potential of environmental history.

Summary

Environmental history could significantly improve the establishment and promotion of H.A. in DPP. Thanks to its emphasis on the interconnectedness of the human and natural worlds, its interdisciplinary perspective, application of systems thinking, and compatibility with community approaches to H.A., environmental history is a valuable tool for promoting sense of place and ecological citizenship. That said, the integration of environmental history into H.A. programming will require planning, care, and appropriate leadership so that problems of fear and disciplinary incapacities do not hinder its success. Educating and convincing the people involved with parks of the 138 merits of environmental history to H.A. in DPP, will provide the foundation and internal community support needed to creatively address challenges such as the culture of denial.

Transcending what one environmental historian calls “a formal, active and aggressive system of dismissal” (Smokey, July 6, 2003) will not be a quick or easy process, but it is necessary. Parks cannot exist as islands; and they will not be successful at protecting ecological integrity unless changes occur in the cities, provinces, countries, and in the individual behaviours of the people who live in them.

If environmental history is incorporated into H.A. programming, it will significantly improve the accuracy of the picture being presented to the public and it will serve to strengthen the spoke that H.A. holds in the wheel that is moving us towards the development of ecological citizenship.

139

Chapter VI

Summary and Conclusions

Although others have suggested environmental history could be useful to parks,

and specifically to park management, there has been little formal research done to assess how environmental history could be used in Heritage Appreciation (H.A.) programming in parks. This research study was designed to assess how environmental history could influence H.A. programming in Dinosaur Provincial Park (DPP). It was guided by three objectives: to assess the current state of H.A. programming in DPP, to assess the perceived ability of current programming to achieve agency and site-level mandates, and to describe how environmental history could influence H.A. programming at DPP and its ability to achieve park mandates. To address these objectives, a total of fourteen in-depth interviews were conducted. Seven interpreters, five individuals involved in park management, and two environmental historians were interviewed. Interviews were transcribed in the fall and data were coded with the aid of Atlas T.I., a computerised qualitative data analysis tool.

Current State of H.A. in DPP

At the present time, H.A. programming in DPP is extremely popular with Park visitors. Nearly 40,000 visitors participated in the various programs offered at the Park between May and September of 2003 (DPP, 2003a). An additional 650 visitors were turned away due to a lack of space on tours (DPP, 2003a). The general feeling amongst those involved in H.A. at DPP was that visitors thoroughly enjoyed park programming, which often exceeded visitor expectations (Dino, September 4, 2003; Edna, August 19, 140

2003; Norm, July 17, 2003). Considering results of a recent park survey indicated that 85 per cent of surveyed visitors would be “very likely” to recommend the park’s interpretive programs and services to others, it can be concluded that the perceptions of interviewees are fairly accurate (Western Management Consultants, 2002).

Although there was a general feeling amongst managers and interpreters that visitors felt programs were worthwhile and successful, there was also a general feeling that park programming needed to change. Recommendations for change included: adding more environmental education programming, expanding community outreach initiatives, and making programs available to a wider demographic population. Other recommendations for change were more encompassing. For example, it was suggested that programming needed to be changed so it presented the big picture and promoted ecological citizenship. The feeling that current programming does not promote ecological citizenship is arguably the most significant observation made by interviewees because, according to agency mandates, H.A. programming at DPP should be promoting ecological citizenship.

Ability of H.A. to Meet Park Mandates

All of the interviewees suggested they personally believed the purpose of H.A.

should be to promote environmental citizenship or ecological literacy. However, none of

the interviewees, including the managers and interpreters at DPP, felt current

programming was capable of achieving ecological citizenship. Moreover, one of the

interpreters explained she did not think the promotion of ecological citizenship was

actually a stated goal of H.A. She suggested that “in the managers’ eye,” the purpose of 141

H.A “has a lot to do with informative recreation” (Nettie, August 30, 2003). Although none of the comments from managers indicated that this was the case, many interpreters were confused about the meaning of Heritage Appreciation. What these results indicate is that the communication of agency goals to Park staff needs to be improved and site- level objectives need to be changed so they reflect the agency mandate to promote ecological citizenship.

How Environmental History Could Influence H.A. Programming

Results of this study indicate environmental history could improve H.A.

programming at DPP. More specifically, results indicate theoretical tenets of ecological

citizenship parallel the foundations of environmental history. For example,

environmental history is grounded in the belief that the human and natural worlds are,

and always have been, interconnected (Cronon, 1996; Hughes, 2001; Opie, 1985;

Stewart, 1998). This is the same philosophical underpinning of contemporary theories

related to the development of ecological literacy/citizenship (Capra, 1999; Cuthbertson &

Curthroys, 2002; McClaren, 1989; Puk, 2002; Sanger, 1997). Environmental history is

also interdisciplinary, as well as grounded by systems thinking, representative of a larger

sense of time/history, conducive to developing a sense of place, and supportive of a

community approach to learning. These are all qualities theorists suggest are needed to

promote ecological citizenship. They are also qualities largely absent in current H.A.

programming at the Park.

Theorists also suggest experiential learning is required to promote ecological

citizenship (Capra, 1999; Cuthbertson & Curthroys, 2002; McClaren, 1989; Puk, 2002; 142

Sanger, 1997; van Matre, 1999). Writing environmental histories is an experiential process, but reading or hearing environmental history is not an experiential process in and of itself. However, this does not preclude presenting environmental history experientially. I have no doubt that interpreters could communicate the core environmental history messages, such as the fact that people have always been connected to nature, in experiential ways. The key is to ensure interpreters are given the creative space to find new ways of presenting this new information.

Integrating Environmental History and H.A. Programming: Appropriate Leadership

Interview results indicate integrating environmental history and H.A. cannot happen successfully without the appropriate leadership needed to addresses some of the challenges associated with change at DPP. Leaders will need to be open-minded, and creative, to prevent issues such as a lack of money, fear of change, and disciplinary biases, from interfering with the integration of environmental history and H.A. To address problems associated with a lack of financial resources, partnerships with the academic community could be created (Louter, 2003). To foster the trust and support needed to incorporate environmental history and parks, information sessions designed to familiarise park staff with environmental history and address fears of the unknown need to be provided.

Facilitated meetings that bring individuals from various disciplines together to focus on Park issues and themes should follow information sessions. Following these steps will help to ensure the process and direction of change is supported and understood by those involved in park management and the delivery of H.A. programs. More 143 importantly, the process should involve encouraging the managers and interpreters to adopt an enthusiasm for learning as well as a sense of ownership in the product and process. As summarised by one of the environmental historians:

the solution is being open to a much broader perspective as a manager and making

sure that philosophy is understood by everyone down the line so that everyone

feels comfortable contributing what they can … I think that if you take that kind

of approach, you have a very different body of information to convey to the

public and a staff that knows they have permission to do it… and all of a sudden,

you have different interpretation going on – which is self perpetuating…like

anything else – we learn to do it. (Yogi, August 27, 2003)

The preceding discussion of appropriate leadership traits required to integrate environmental history and parks illustrates that the integration needs to be viewed as an on-going process rather than a single radical change. Therefore, individuals or consulting firms interested in improving H.A. programming in parks should focus on ensuring the integration of environmental history into the parks is self-perpetuating. This will require facilitation and mentoring that extends beyond the traditional contract period.

Implications and Conclusions

Based on the findings of this research study, it can be concluded that, if integrated appropriately, environmental history could significantly improve the ability of H.A. programming at DPP to promote ecological citizenship. Environmental history has all of the qualities theorists suggest are necessary for the promotion of ecological literacy. It is interdisciplinary, grounded by systems thinking, representative of a larger sense of time, 144 conducive to developing a sense of place, supportive of a community approach to learning, and it integrates nature and culture.

Although this study was designed specifically to explore how environmental history could influence H.A. in DPP the results have implications for the broader fields of park management, heritage appreciation and environmental history.

For managers, environmental history could be viewed as the information needed to recalibrate the H.A. tool so it becomes suited to promoting ecological citizenship.

However, this recalibration cannot occur without re-evaluating the themes and concepts that govern H.A. programs. Programs are the product of the goals and objectives that guide them. This study on DPP illustrates that agency-level goals cannot be achieved through H.A. programming until site-level foundations reflect the changes made at the agency level. Writing goals and objectives that will accomplish the mandate of promoting ecological citizenship will require a willingness and openness to more collaborative, community-oriented, and inter-disciplinary strategies. The end product of this process will likely be a set of goals that look and feel very different from those that managers may be more comfortable and accustomed to. The learning curve associated with the adoption of an environmental history perspective could be fairly steep and there are likely to be a lot of questions managers will have to answer. Appropriate partnerships will need to be established so managers can be mentored through the process. Louter’s

(2003) experience with the NPS could serve as a guide to establishing these partnerships.

The challenge in Canada will be finding mentors, given the scarcity of individuals and/or groups with extensive experience writing environmental histories. 145

There are additional implications this research has for managers. Research results revealed that many interpreters and some managers are confused about the meaning of

H.A. One interpreter even suggested she did not think that the stated goal of H.A. was associated with promoting ecological citizenship. The extent of the confusion amongst interviewees is significant and it needs to be addressed. Although it was not mentioned by any of the interpreters during the interviews, it is possible that confusion over the meaning of H.A. and/or its purpose in the managers’ eye could be associated with contradictory actions on the part of various government departments.

One of the key agency messages interpreters are supposed to communicate to the public is that “Alberta Parks are managed to preserve environmental diversity and ecological integrity” (Alberta Parks, 2003, p.3). This message simply does not fit with the fact that “exploration and drilling for oil and gas continues in Dinosaur Provincial

Park and other protected areas in Alberta” (Boyd, 2003, p. 172). In the fall of 2003, an oilrig was in plain view of the Bus Tour road in DPP. It would have been rather difficult for interpreters to toe the government line given the contradictory actions of their employer. This problem needs to be addressed if managers or government officials want to meet their own mandates and interpreters should not be expected to communicate messages that are not supported by government actions.

This study also has implications for Heritage Presenters, environmental educators, and other groups committed to promoting ecological citizenship. A review of the literature related to environmental education and heritage presentation revealed that, despite the fact they share the same goal, there is conflict and disjunction between these professions. Some felt that H.A. programming in parks could not be successful at 146 promoting ecological citizenship because programs are too short, or they lack rigour.

These same individuals argued that classroom-based environmental education programs were more suited to promoting ecological citizenship (Hungerford, 1996; Knapp, 2001).

Another researcher was angry with environmental education and claimed it had failed to accomplish its goal (van Matre, 1999).

In the end, there are not any studies that prove environmental education, earth education, H.A., or any of its other permutations, are effective or ineffective in promoting ecological citizenship. It is true that some studies suggest behaviour change occurs, but there has yet to be a measure of whether this is a short term or long-term change. The promotion of ecological citizenship is not going to happen overnight and it will be difficult to measure on the typical time scale of peer-reviewed research studies. What is important to keep in mind is that, currently, education is the best tool we have to promote ecological literacy.

Environmental history is one spoke in the wheel that is moving us towards ecological citizenship. Earth education, environmental education, books, magazines, nature videos, and simply spending time outside are other spokes in the wheel. The purpose of this study is not to claim environmental history is the only way to promote ecological citizenship. The strength of environmental history is the perspective that it offers and the co-operation that it requires.

One of the most significant implications of this study is it does not just challenge how we approach H.A. in parks, it challenges us to re-think education itself. Although universities and/or secondary schools offer some interdisciplinary courses (e.g. environmental history), the vast majority of courses are discipline-based. The students 147 graduating from the current education system are individuals who generally lack the appropriate training and experience to think systematically and co-operatively. This does not help the leaders of tomorrow to see the systems thinking big-picture required to address the myriad of environmental issues we are facing as a global community. Courses need to be modified so fewer people who graduate from universities to work in the H.A. field (or any other field) can say “there just doesn’t seem to be any place we learn that way – we don’t really learn the big picture anywhere” (Nettie, August 30, 2003).

This study also has implications for environmental historians. Environmental historians have been writing prescriptive histories for at least 30 years. Although several award winning environmental history books have been written and read by millions of people (e.g. Water by Marq deVilliers & Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond), the challenge for environmental historians is to make their writing more accessible to the general public (Stine, 2002). Co-operative ventures with the NPS, Parks Canada and/or

Alberta Parks, would put environmental history on display and make it more accessible to the general public. Doing so will help the public to understand the bigger picture and will ideally lead to the development of ecological citizenship. Partnerships with parks could also provide academics with funding for relevant research.

Recommendations for Future Research

Based on the results of this research study, it is recommended environmental history be incorporated into H.A. programming at DPP. The utility of environmental history to H.A. programming is not, however, specific to DPP. Indeed, it would likely be of even greater utility in parks where cultural links are more prominently featured 148

(Louter, 2003). Given the rich links between the natural and cultural heritage of Cypress

Hills Interprovincial Park (CHIPP), Writing on Stone (WOS) provincial park, these two parks would be particularly well suited to similar research studies or pilot projects. In fact, one of the interviewees commented on how environmental history would be an interesting “investigation here in the Cypress Hills…because this has been such a managed landscape for thousands of years. Since people came, it has been affected by people” (Norm, July 17, 2003). Given the fact that environmental history has not been formally integrated into many parks in Canada, the research opportunities are extensive.

A good place to start would be with parks where long human occupation of the land is already part of the park story. Jasper, Banff, Louisbourg, Kejimkujik, Writing on Stone and Algonquin are examples of parks that would benefit from environmental histories.

Another area where more research is needed is in the development of more

Canadian environmental histories that focus specifically on park-related themes. The production of a body of literature grounded in an interdisciplinary perspective would provide Heritage Presenters and managers with much needed information to improve the ability of programming to promote ecological citizenship. As previously mentioned, partnerships between academic institutions and parks would be particularly beneficial to helping fill this gap.

More extensive research could also be conducted on the methods Louter (2003) used to integrate environmental history and NPS management. The leadership strategies highlighted in this research study are helpful, but they could be expanded upon to increase the chances of successful integration north of the American border. The success 149 of NPS efforts could also be evaluated to determine how useful environmental history has proven to be to the parks system.

On a more broad level, research could be conducted into how the tenets of environmental history could be used to improve secondary and/or post-secondary education. At the post-secondary level, such research could provide recommendations on how to improve college or university programs that train park managers, heritage presenters, educators, and other individuals dedicated to encouraging the development of ecological citizenship.

The combination of environmental history and park management and/or H.A. in parks is a burgeoning field of enquiry. Consequently, there are many opportunities for future research. A natural extension of this research study – and one that I might pursue in the future – is to facilitate the integration of environmental history into H.A. at DPP and to observe, evaluate, and reflect on the process so it can be improved in the future.

Closing Notes

I conducted this research study to investigate the relevancy of environmental history to H.A. programming with the hope that I could offer helpful recommendations to those involved in the field. Although this study answered some questions, it also revealed many others. This appears to be the nature of inquiry.

One of the environmental historians I interviewed commented that writing environmental history “is a struggle…I mean it really is. But that’s O.K. Every time we struggle with these things we get a little closer – because there’s no answer” (Yogi,

August 26, 2003). Completing this study presented some challenges of its own and I 150 sometimes wondered if it would have the impact that I desired. What I realise now is that this study is just one piece in a larger puzzle that will never be complete. The important thing is to be open to different perspectives and ways of doing things. As noted by one of the interpreters “you can’t be afraid to change” (Hariet, August 23, 2003). I hope that

DPP and other parks successfully integrate environmental history into H.A. programming so that park visitors and employees alike will become ecologically literate and able “to see a longer continuum of time…[and] a broader sense of what the earth is” (Smokey,

July 6, 2003). After all, environmental history, in some ways, holds the key to understanding that “the land shapes us, moulds our character and challenges our spirit.

We are, afterall, only tiny links in the long chain of creation. And it is only through understanding our past can we hope to fathom either present or future” (Huck &

Whitney, 1992, p.8). 151

References

Alberta Community Development. (2003). Annual Report: Community development, for

the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003. Retrieved from www.cd.gov.ab.ca on

January 10, 2004.

Alberta Parks. (2003). Backgrounder for Alberta Parks and Protected areas: Key Message

Framework. Provincial Interpreter’s Training conference handout.

Alberta Parks. (2002). Alberta’s parks and protected areas…it’s in our nature!

Edmonton: Queen’s Printer.

Alberta Parks. (2001). Parks and protected areas act: Background. Retrieved from

www.cd.gov.ab.ca/all_about_us/legislation/parks/ppa_act/index.asp on February

18, 2003.

Andrew, J. (1996). Environmental education research: Towards an historical perspective.

In R. Abrams (Ed.), Environmental education for the next generation:

Professional development and teacher training (pp.84-86). California: North

American Association for Environmental Education.

Arksey, H. & Knight, P. (1999). Interviewing for social scientists. London: Sage

Publications.

Aronson, D. (1996). Overview of systems thinking. Retrieved from www.thinking.net on

January 10, 2004.

Beck, L. & Cable, T.T. (1998). Interpretation for the 21st century: Fifteen guiding

principles for interpreting nature and culture. Champaign, IL: Sagamore.

Butler, J.R. & Hvenegaard, G.T. (2002). Interpretation and environmental education. In 152

P. Dearden & R. Rollins (Eds), Parks and protected areas in Canada: Planning

and management. (2nd ed.), (Chapt. 8, pp. 179-203). Don Mills, ON: Oxford

University Press.

Butler, J.R. (1980). The role of interpretation as a motivating agent toward park

resource protection. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.

Butler, J.R. (1993). Interpretation as a management tool. In P. Dearden & R. Rollins

(Eds), Parks and protected areas in Canada: Planning and management. Don

Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

Bodley, J. H. (1994). Cultural anthropology: Tribes, states and the global state. New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Capra, F. (1999). Ecoliteracy: The challenge for education in the next century. Liverpool

Schumacher Lectures, California: Center for ecoliteracy.

Capra, F. (1998). Ecology, systems thinking and project-based learning. Autodesk

Foundation’s Sixth Annual conference on project based learning, San Francisco:

Center for ecoliteracy.

Christensen, N.L. (1989). Landscape History and Ecological Change, Journal of Forest

History 33 (3), 116-125.

Conrad, R. & Carrier, M. (2000). Integrating cultural and natural history in State Park

management. The George Wright Forum, 17 (3), 21-30.

Coffee, A. & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. London: Sage

Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design : qualitative & quantitative approaches.

California: Sage Publications 153

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and mixed method

approaches (2nd ed.). California: Sage Publications.

Cronon, W. (1983). Changes in the land: Indians, colonists and the ecology of New

England. New York: Hill and Wang.

Cronon, W. (1992). A Place for Stories: Nature, History and Narrative, The Journal of

American History 78 (4), 1347-1376.

Cronon, W. (1996a). The Trouble with Wilderness or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature,

Environmental History 1, (1), 7-27.

Cronon, W. (1996b). The trouble with wilderness: A response, Environmental History 1,

(1), 47-55.

Cross, S. (1999). Education: the sharpest enforcement tool. Alberta Game Warden (Fall),

18.

Cuthbertson, B. & Curthroys, L. (2002). Listening to the landscape: Interpretive planning

for ecological literacy. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 7 (2), 224-

240.

Dinosaur Provincial Park. (2003a). Annual visitor services personal contact statistics.

Unpublished document.

Dinosaur Provincial Park. (2003b). Interpreter’s Manual: Dinosaur Provincial Park.

Unpublished training manual.

Dormaar, J. (1990). Waiting for a vision. The explorer’s journal, 66 (4).

Dunlap, T. (1996). Comment: But What did you go into the Wilderness to See?,

Environmental History 1 (1), 43- 46.

Eagels, P.F. (1993). Environmental Management in Parks. In P. Dearden & R. Rollins 154

(Eds), Parks and protected areas in Canada: Planning and management. Don

Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

Earthlines. (1999). Best practice in park interpretation and education. Report to the

ANZECC working group on National parks and protected areas management

benchmarking and best practice program. Victoria, Australia.

Ecoleaders (2003). Review of heritage appreciation foundations for Cypress Hills

interprovincial park (Draft copy- August 2003).

Environment Canada. (2003). Environmental citizenship. Retrieved from:

http://www.cciw.ca/ glimr/classroom/chapter-3/c3intro-e.html on January 10,

2004.

Golley, F. (1998). A primer for environmental literacy. New Haven: Yale University

Press.

Gough, S & Scott, W. (2003). Promoting environmental citizenship through learning:

towards a theory of change. University of Bath: Centre for Research in Education

and the Environment. Retrieved from: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/geps/research/

politics/scott%20and%20Gough%20paper.doc. on January 10, 2004.

Gross, R. (1998). Dinosaur Country: Unearthing the Alberta badlands. Wardlow:

Badland Books.

Heinze-Fry, J.A. (1997). Concept mapping: Weaving conceptual connections. In R.

Abrams (Ed.), Weaving connections: Cultures and environments – environmental

education and the peoples of the world (pp.138-147). Vancouver, B.C.: North

American Association for Environmental Education.

Hemingway, J. L. (1999). Critique and emancipation: Toward a critical theory of leisure. 155

In E.L. Jackson & T.L. Burton (Eds), Leisure Studies: Prospects for the twenty-

first century (pp. 299-317). State College, Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Holstein, J. & Gubrum, F. (1995). The active interview. London: Sage Publications.

Huck, B. & Whiteway, D. (1998). In search of ancient Alberta. Winnipeg: Heartland

Publications

Hungerford, H.R. (1996). The development of responsible environmental citizenship: A

critical challenge. Journal of interpretation research, 1, 13-24.

Hughes, D. J. (1995). Ecology and Development as Narrative Themes of World History,

Environmental History Review19, (1), 1-19.

Hughes, D. (2001). Introduction: History and Ecology, An environmental History of the

world. New York: Routledge.

Kliewer, J. R. (2001). The innovative colleges and universities of the 1960s and 1970s:

Lessons from six alternative institutions. In Smith, B. & McCann, J. (Eds.),

Reinventing ourselves: Interdisciplinary education, collaborative learning and

experimentation in higher education (pp. 19-49). Boston, Massachusetts: Anker

Publishing Company, Inc.

Kirby, S. & McKenna, K. (1989). Experience, Research, Social Change: Methods from

the Margins. Toronto: Garamond Press.

Knapp, D. (2001). Environmental education and environmental interpretation: The

relationships. In H.R. Hungerford, W.J. Bluhm, T.L. Volk, & J.M. Ramsey (Eds.)

Essential readings in environmental education (2nd ed.), (pp. 325-332).

Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing.

Knudson, D. M., T.T. Cable, & L. Beck. (1995) Interpretation of Cultural and Natural 156

Resources. State College, Pa.: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.

London: Sage Publications.

Kyburz-Graber, R. (1999). Environmental education as critical education: How teachers

and students handle the challenge. Cambridge Journal of Education (29) 3, 415-

432.

Louter, D. (2003). On becoming relevant: Environmental history and national park

management. Paper presented at the George Wright Society/CR2003 Conference.

San Diego, California.

Machlis, G. (1996). Usable knowledge: A plan for furthering social science and the

National Parks. Retrieved from: www.nps.gov/socialscience/waso/uk_summ.pdf

on March 10, 2003.

Mackintosh, B. (1985). Interpretation in Crisis. Interpretation in the National Park

Service [on-line book]. Retrieved November, 01 2002 from:

www.nps.gov/history.

Mark, S. (1996). Writing Environmental and Park Histories. Retrieved November 11,

2002 from www.nps.gov/history/hisnps/nphistory (originally published in:

Heritage Management in Australia and New Zealand: The Human Dimensions,

2nd ed. C. Michael Hall & Simon McArthur, eds. New York: Oxford University

Press.

McCann, J. (2001). Students on interdisciplinary education: how they learn and what

they learn. In Smith, B. & McCann, J. (Eds.), Reinventing ourselves:

Interdisciplinary education, collaborative learning and experimentation in higher 157

education (pp. 355-367). Boston, Massachusetts: Anker Publishing Company,

Inc.

McClaren, M. (1989). Developing environmental literacy. Connections Journal, 5 (1).

pp. 12-16.

Mishler, E. G. (1991). Research interviewing: context and narrative. Cambridge,

Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Mountain Parks Heritage Interpretation Association (MPHIA). (2000). Professional

Interpreter’s Course Book. Banff.

National Park Service. (2001a). 2001 NPS management policies – Chapter 7:

Interpretation and education. Retrieved from www.nps.gov/policy/mp/

chapter7.htm on February 21, 2003.

National Park Service. (2001b). Mission. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/legacy/

mission.html on December 10, 2002.

Nelson, T.G. (1996). Paradigms and Paradox: Belief structures in environmental

education. In R. Abrams (Ed.), Environmental education for the next generation:

Professional development and teacher training (pp.257-259). California: North

American Association for Environmental Education.

Neuman, W.L. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches, 4th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Pearson Education Company.

Newell, W. (2001). Powerful pedagogies. In Smith, B. & McCann, J. (Eds.),

Reinventing ourselves: Interdisciplinary education, collaborative learning and

experimentation in higher education (pp. 196- 211). Boston, Massachusetts:

Anker Publishing Company, Inc. 158

Opie, J. (1985). Environmental History: Pitfalls and opportunities. Environmental

History: Critical issues in comparative perspective, ed. Kendall E. Bailes. New

York: University Press of America.

Orams, M.B. & Hill, G.J.E. (1998). Controlling the ecotourist in a wild dolphin

feeding program: is education the answer? Journal of Environmental Education

29(3), 33-8.

Parks Canada (1994). Guiding Principles and Operational Policies. Ottawa: Minister of

Supply and Services.

Parks Canada, (1997). Banff National Park: Management plan. Ottawa, ON: Minister

of Public works and Government Services Canada.

Parks Canada. (2001). Parks Canada’s approach to: Defining messages of national

Significance.

Parks Canada (2003). A summary of Parks Canada’s corporate plan for 2003-08.

Retrieved from http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/rpts/ann-rpt/annex1_E.asp on

January 10, 2004.

Potyondi, B. (1995). In Palliser’s triangle: Living in the grasslands, 1850-1930.

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Purich Publishing.

Puk, T. (2002). Ecological literacy as the first imperative: Principles for achieving

ecological literacy in the next ten years – first steps. Research Report, Lakehead

University, Department of Lifelong Learning.

Pyne, S.J. (1997). Vestal Fire: An environmental history, told through fire, of Europe and

Europe’s encounter with the world. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Reich, J. (2001). Recreating the Wilderness: Shaping Narratives and Landscapes in 159

Shenandoah National Park. Environmental History 6, (1), 95-117.

Reid, G. (1994). Dinosaur Provincial Park. Oakville: Mosaic Press.

Russell, D.A. (1989). An odyssey in time: The dinosaurs of North America. Toronto:

University of Toronto Press.

Russell, C. L., Bell, A. C., & Fawcett, L. (2000). Navigating the waters of Canadian

Environmental Education. In T. Goldstein & D. Selby (Eds.), Weaving

connections: Educating for peace, social and environmental justice (pp. 196-218).

Toronto: Sumach Press.

Sale, K. (1991). Dwellers in the Land: The Bioregional Vision. Gabriola Island: New

Society Publishers.

Samdahl, D. (1999). Epistemological and methodological issues in leisure research. In

E.L Jackson & T. L. Burton (Eds.), Leisure studies: Prospects for the twenty-first

century (pp. 109-220). State College, PA: Venture Publishing Inc.

Sandford, R.W. (2001). The best of Banff heritage orientation program. Paper presented

at an information session for the Mountain Parks Heritage Interpretation

Association, Banff, AB.

Sandford, R.W. (2002). Seeing and believing: Ecology and Wonder in Canada’s

Mountains. The interpretive manual for Canada’s United nations International

Year of Mountains Celebration.

Sanger, M. (1997). Sense of place and education. The Journal of environmental

education, 29(1), 4-8.

Searle, R. (2000). Phantom Parks: The Struggle to Save Canada’s National Parks.

Toronto: Key Porter Books. 160

Stankey, G., McCool, S, Clark, R. & Brown, P.J. (1999). Institutional and organisational

challenges to managing natural resources for recreation: A social learning model.

In E.L Jackson & T. L. Burton (Eds.), Leisure studies: Prospects for the twenty-

first century (pp. 109-220). State College, PA: Venture Publishing Inc.

Stewart, D. W. & Shamdasani, P. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice.

California: Sage Publications.

Stewart, M. (1998). Environmental history: profile of a developing field. The history

teacher, 31 (3), pp. 351-368.

Stine, J.K. (2002). Placing environmental history on display. Environmental History (7),

4, 566-588.

Swinnerton, G.S. (1993). The Alberta Park System: Policy and Planning. In P. Dearden

and R. Rollins (Eds.), Parks and protected areas in Canada: Planning and

management (pp.111-136). Toronto: Oxford University press.

Swinnerton, G.S. (1999). Recreation and conservation: Issues and prospects. In E.L

Jackson & T. L. Burton (Eds.), Leisure studies: Prospects for the twenty-first

century (pp. 109-220). State College, PA: Venture Publishing Inc.

Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: analysis types and software tools. NewYork:

Falmer Press.

Tudge, C. (1996). The time before history: 5 million years of human impact. New York:

Simon & Schuster.

Van Matre, S. (1999). Earth education: A new beginning (4th printing). Greenville, West

Virginia: The institute for Earth Education.

Van Tighem, K. (1986). Have Our National Parks Failed Us? Park News 22 (2), 31-33. 161

Veal, A.J. (1997). Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism: A Practical Guide (2nd

ed.). Toronto: Prentice Hall.

Western Management Consultants. (2002). 2002 survey of interpretive programs:

Cypress Hills Provincial Park, Dinosaur Provincial Park, Writing on Stone

Provincial Park. Unpublished Document.

Wilford, J.N. (1985). The riddle of the dinosaur. New York: Vintage Books.

Wolcott, H.F. (1995). The Art of Fieldwork. London: Altamira Press.

Wolfe, R. (1997). Interpretative education: an under-rated element of Park

management? Research Links 5 (3), 11-12.

Woodley, S. (2002). Planning and managing for ecological integrity. In P. Dearden

and R. Rollins (Eds.), Parks and protected areas in Canada: Planning and

management (2nd. Ed.) (pp.97-114). Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Worster, D. (1979). Dust bowl: The southern plains in the 1930’s. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Worster, D. (1988). Appendix: Doing Environmental History. In D. Worster (Ed.), The

Ends of the Earth: Perspectives on Modern Environmental History. New York:

University Press of America

Worster, D. (2001). Environmental History: The view at the Grand Canyon. Retrieved

October 7, 2002, from http:// www.cr.nps.gov/history/hisnps/nphistory/grand.htm.

162

Appendix A

Heritage Appreciation Objectives- Dinosaur Provincial Park

The following visitor services objectives are presented to interpreters in their information binder:

1) Provide an orientation and information service to all visitors to DPP

2) Enhance visitor awareness, appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of

DPP through interpretation of the park’s natural and cultural attributes

3) Protect park natural and cultural resources by formalising visitor use patterns

and by providing visitors with both an awareness and understanding of their

impact on the park environment, as well as their personal responsibility to

minimise negative impact

4) Assist park management and resource protection by developing interpretive

programs that will aid in minimising enforcement problems

5) Provide educational facilities, programs, and support materials designed to

meet the specific needs of specialised groups and schools in understanding the

significance and complexity of the Dinosaur Park story.

6) Present programming consistent with the World Heritage Convention articles

and guidelines to identify, conserve, protect, present and transmit the park’s

internationally significant resources (DPP Binder, 2003, n.p). 163

Appendix B

Alberta’s PPA’s Backgrounder and Key Message Framework (2003): A Summary

Vision:

Alberta’s parks and protected areas preserve, in perpetuity, landscapes, natural features and processes representative of the environmental diversity of the province

Mission:

As stewards of our environment, the Government of Alberta preserves, protects, and enhances the province’s natural heritage within a network of parks and protected areas.

Many of these areas are also tourist attractions, providing a range of outdoor recreation opportunities where Albertans and visitors to the province experience, enjoy and learn about our natural and cultural heritage

Goals (i.e. “how we intend to preserve Alberta’s PPA’s”)

1) Preservation: To preserve in perpetuity a network of parks and protected areas that

represent the diversity of the province’s natural heritage as well as related cultural

heritage.

2) Heritage Appreciation: To provide opportunities to explore, understand and

appreciate the natural heritage of Alberta, and enhance public awareness and our

relationship to and dependence on it

3) Outdoor Recreation: to provide a variety of natural landscape dependent outdoor

recreation opportunities and related facilities and services

4) Heritage Tourism: To encourage residents and visitors to the province to discover and

enjoy the natural heritage of Alberta through a variety of outdoor recreation and

nature based tourism opportunities, facilities and accommodation services 164

Key Messages:

1) Alberta’s parks and protected areas preserve the province’s environmental diversity

and associated cultural features…for all time.

2) The PPA’s network protects a spectrum of lands from purely recreational sites to

pristine wilderness areas. (note: it is further stated that “PPA’s role has changed

dramatically over the past ten years from being primarily small land allocations for

recreational purposes to larger areas that reflect the preservation/protection objectives

of intact ecosystems and ecological integrity – a major paradigm shift!” p. 3)

3) Parks and protected areas contribute to the Alberta Advantage; they ensure a healthy

and sustainable environment, upon which our quality of life, and prosperity depend

4) Alberta’s Parks and Protected Areas are managed to preserve environmental diversity

and ecological integrity

5) At many parks and protected areas, visitors experience and learn about the province’s

natural and cultural features and participate in a broad range of outdoor recreation

activities.

6) Safeguarding Alberta’s parks and protected areas are everyone’s responsibility 165

166 167

168 169 170

Appendix E

Interview Schedule

Introductory formalities: I introduced myself to the participant, thanked them for their time and set a relaxed and comfortable tone for the interview. I began the interview with questions about the background of participants. These questions varied according to their areas of expertise. After these questions were asked, the discussion evolved according to the emerging conversation. I used appropriate questions to keep the interview focused and relevant to the research study.

Interview Schedule for Park Interpreters

A. How long have you been an interpreter? Where have you worked? B. Tell me about what initially motivated you to get involved in parks and interpretation. C. Tell me about your background in education? (probe did it have anything to do with getting involved in interpretation and/or is it useful to you as an interpreter) D. In recent years, there has been a shift from the term “interpretation,” to “Heritage Appreciation.” What do you think about this change? (Probe is it just a change in terminology, or does it signify changes in the field itself). E. What do you think the primary purpose of H.A./interpretation is? F. Do you think programming at DPP achieves this purpose? (if yes or no, please explain, give examples of success/failure) G. What messages do you think visitors currently leave DPP with? (e.g. what messages are communicated through current programs?) H. Some people have suggested that there is a link between interpretation/heritage presentation and the promotion of conservation/preservation and environmental citizenship. What do you think? (probes: is this an important goal (primary importance or secondary importance?); is there evidence that H.A. programming at DPP successfully promotes environmental citizenship/ or does not promote environmental citizenship). I. I have heard a debate recently. Some people think that that “natural” and “cultural” heritage should be communicated separately while others suggest that the two are inter-related. What do you think? (probe: How do you think programming at DPP presents “natural” and “cultural” heritage? Probe: can you provide specific examples from current programming?) J. What do you think of the interpretive manual and training you have received at the park? (What was good, what would you change?). K. If given the opportunity, what would you change about H.A. programming at DPP? (probe, why would you make those changes?) L. Do you have anything else you would like to add?

Interview Schedule for Park Managers

A. Tell me about what being a (insert managerial title here) entails? B. How long have you been involved in park management? 171

C. Tell me about what initially motivated you to get involved in parks park management. D. What is your educational background? (probe did it have anything to do with getting involved in interpretation and/or is it useful to you as an interpreter) E. In recent years, there has been a shift from the term “interpretation,” to “Heritage Appreciation.” What do you think about this change ? (Probe is it just a change in terminology, or does it signify “larger” changes in the field itself?). F. What do you think the primary purpose of H.A./interpretation is? G. Do you think programming at DPP achieves this purpose? (if yes or no, please explain, give examples of success/failure) H. What messages do you think visitors currently leave DPP with? (e.g. what messages are communicated through current programs?) I. Some people have suggested that there is a link between interpretation/heritage presentation and the promotion of conservation/preservation and environmental citizenship. What do you think? J. Is this an important goal for H.A. in Alberta Parks? [probe: primary importance or secondary importance?; is there evidence that H.A. programming at DPP successfully promotes environmental citizenship/ or does not promote environmental citizenship). K. I have heard a debate recently. Some people think that that “natural” and “cultural” heritage should be communicated separately while others suggest that the two are inter-related. What do you think? (probe: How do you think programming at DPP presents “natural” and “cultural” heritage? Probe: can you provide specific examples from current programming?) L. Tell me about some of the challenges you’ve experienced as a manager with respect to the promotion of H.A. M. What is your impression of the public’s view of H.A. programming at DPP? (probe: Do they like it?, How do you know this?, Do you know why they like/don’t like it?) N. If given the opportunity, what would you change about H.A. programming at DPP? (probe, why would you make those changes?) O. Do you have anything else you would like to add?

Interview Schedule for Environmental Historians

A. You have been involved in several park-related projects. Tell me about some of the projects you’ve done. B. Why/how did you get involved in this line of work? (probes: What is your educational background; Are there specific objectives that drive and/or motivate your work?) C. Would you describe any of your work as “environmental history”? (probe: How would you describe or define “environmental history?”) D. Do you think environmental history has a role to play in H.A. in parks? Why? (probe: how is environmental history different from other information currently used in parks?). E. I have heard a debate recently. Some people think that that “natural” and “cultural” heritage should be communicated separately while others suggest that the two are inter-related. What do you think? (probe: How do you think programming at DPP 172

presents “natural” and “cultural” heritage? Probe: can you provide specific examples from current programming?) F. Based on your experience with H.A. and Parks, what are some of the challenges have you experienced? (probe: have you experienced any challenges to the environmental history perspective, or your attempts to integrate it into they parks system?; How did you deal with those challenges?) G. How do you see environmental history influencing interpretive training? (probe – would it be an “add-on” or full replacement/paradigm shift?) H. Have you ever been to DPP? What did you think? Did you experience any H.A. programs while you were there? What were your impressions? Based on your knowledge of the park, how do you think environmental history could influence programming there? I. Is there anything else you would like to add?

Concluding the Interview

I thanked the participants for their time and valuable input and informed them that I would contact them if I needed further information or if I needed to schedule another interview. I also informed them that they would be receiving a copy of the transcript so they would have the opportunity to confirm its accuracy and/or offer suggestions. 173

Appendix F

Informed Consent Forms

ACADIA UNIVERSITY School of Recreation Management & Kinesiology

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Research Project Title: Environmental History: Assessing its Potential to Influence Heritage Appreciation in Dinosaur Provincial Park (DPP)

Investigator: David J. Verhulst, Graduate Student, Acadia University Email: [email protected] DPP Staff Line: (403) 378-4013

Advisor Dr. John W. Colton, Assistant Professor (902) 585-1160 Acadia University School or Recreation Management & Kinesiology

The purpose of this study is to explore heritage appreciation in Dinosaur Provincial Park (DPP). Promoting appreciation of natural and cultural heritage has become a mandated priority not only in DPP, but also in other Provincial and National Parks throughout Canada and the United States. You have been identified as someone who can provide insight into current heritage appreciation programming and give suggestions regarding future programming.

Each person will be interviewed one to a maximum of three times. Each interview will be between one half and two hours in length. During these interviews you may be asked questions concerning your perspective on current programming at DPP, heritage appreciation as a management mandate and suggestions for the future. These interviews will be recorded on a digital recorder and later transcribed. In order to protect anonymity, the tapes and their associated transcripts will be assigned a pseudo name and locked in a filing cabinet where they will be stored for a period of seven years. After the first interview, efforts will be made to make the information available to you, so that you may comment on the accuracy of the investigator’s interpretation of your ‘data.’

The final research project, including anonymous quotations, will be made available upon request. The research findings may be published in a journal but the anonymity and confidentiality of the subjects will be ensured. Although there may not be direct benefits to this study, the research findings may assist researchers or professionals involved in related fields gain insight into heritage presentation and communication in DPP. These insights may also be useful to other parks, park managers and interpreters.

174

ACADIA UNIVERSITY School of Recreation Management & Kinesiology

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Research Project Title: Environmental History: Assessing its Potential to Influence Heritage Appreciation in Dinosaur Provincial Park (DPP)

Investigator: David J. Verhulst, Graduate Student, Acadia University Email: [email protected] DPP: (403) 378-4013

Advisor Dr. John W. Colton, Assistant Professor (902) 585-1160 Acadia University School or Recreation Management & Kinesiology

This is to certify that I, (print name) hereby agree to participate as a volunteer in the above named project.

I understand that there will not be any health risks to me resulting from my participation in this research. However, the potential benefits of this research to me include increased self-knowledge and greater insight into how heritage appreciation is currently being communicated in Dinosaur Provincial Park and how it could be improved for the future.

I hereby give permission to be interviewed, and for these interviews to be recorded on a digital audio recorder. I understand that following the research, all data including tapes, transcripts and field notes will be kept locked in a secure location for a period of seven years. After seven years this data will be destroyed. I understand that the information may be published, but my name will be kept anonymous and confidential.

I understand that I am free to refuse to answer questions during interviews. I also understand that I am free to withdraw my consent and terminate my participation in this project at any time without penalty. I have been given the opportunity to ask whatever questions I desire, and they have been answered to my satisfaction. I acknowledge receipt of this consent form. Signed,

Participant Researcher

Date