NAI Blog

I’ve always been a believer in the concept best know as “sense of place.” There are multiple definitions for sense of place. Most revolve around the perception humans have involving the natural and cultural landscape connected to a particular location. Interpretation focuses on making intellectual and emotional connections with a resource, which sounds a lot like fostering a sense of place for our audience.

Photo by Fred Fokkelman

In the budding field of ecopsychology, psychologists are looking at this phenomenon in more detail. A recent New York Times Magazine article examined this new area of ecopsychology as an attempt to examine the interaction between the human psyche and the ecosystem. The idea is that nature can optimize the human mind according to a recent article from Peter Kahn in the Journal of Environmental Psychology. His study reported that humans who were mildly stressed recovered from stress more quickly when exposed to nature than those who were exposed to natural scenes on a plasma TV. Real, authentic nature seems to have an important effect on our sense of well being.

The alternate condition might be termed “placelessness,” a location that is devoid of any unique feature, culture or character. More and more of our urban landscapes are sanitized, homogenized locations where “sameness” is all too common. Take a walk through any big mall or community of tract homes and you might be hard put to distinguish that place from thousands of others in this country. On top of this placelessness, many locations where we live now suffer deteriorating environmental quality, leading to an even more serious phenomenon termed “solastalgia” by Dr. Glenn Albrecht, professor of sustainability at Murdoch University in Perth, Australia. He defined solastalgia as “the pain experienced when there is recognition that the place where one resides and that one loves is under immediate assault…a form of homesickness one gets when one is still at home.”

Ecopsychologists are observing this condition of solastalgia in such diverse cases as communities exposed to large mining operations to native populations that have experienced changing uses of their lands. So far, those instances have been localized, but the looming possibilities of climate change or large scale pollution may expose whole sections of the planet to solastalgia, in effect destroying our sense of place.

One of the first things we have to do is to help every person experience a proper sense of place, to form a relationship with a healthy environment. If people know and understand how important it is to maintain those unique features in our landscape (built, natural, cultural), perhaps we’ll fight actions that lead to placelessness and environmental degradation. That’s where interpreters come in, helping to connect people to the most important things in the world around them. If the ecopsychologists are correct, our sense of place is directly related to our sense of well being—our health, both physical and mental—depends upon a healthy environment. If we do this well, perhaps we can increase another phenomenon, “soliphilia: the love of and responsibility for a place, bioregion, planet and the unity of interrelated interests within it.”

If you’d like to learn more, follow this link to the article from the NY Times Magazine: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/magazine/31ecopsych-t.html .

We just returned from several days with the Buffalo Bill Historical Center Board of Trustees and administrative staff members in Washington, D.C. We provided some training on interpretive experience design. The whole group toured several museums to look at interpretive experiences on the ground. We looked at interpretive site experiences to see if they are really “on a mission.”

One of the museums we visited had no mission evident in the experience. You could guess at it from all the “stuff” we saw, but it was not clear. There was lots of stuff to see. Many in the group did not stay long. Most later commented that it was not a great interpretive experience. If you had a pre-existing interest in the subject matter, it was interesting. Without that it was boring and we left with no message or theme. The mission wasn’t clear at all.

This museum was a for profit museum, not governmentally owned or nonprofit. We thought perhaps making a profit was the only motivation. Their website stated a clear broader mission and showed a fair amount of background on that motivation. Their mission simply did not survive the planning process. If it really matters to them, they are missing the boat. Moreover, they have a membership, offsite tours and enrichment experiences listed on the website. None of those were evident in the museum experiences. These would deepen relationships with the organization and its mission but the “ask” did not happen. Later we found a small amount of information on  membership printed on the ticket, but that was not enough. Most had thrown away the ticket pretty quickly at the end of the visit.

Lisa Brochu and I wrote a chapter for a book, Free Choice Learning and the Environment, edited by John Falk, Joe E. Heimlich and Susan Foutz, entitled “From Mission to Practice.” It explains how the mission can be carried into practice better. The mission of the organization should pervade every aspect of an interpretive experience. Facility design, landscape design, food services, sales shops and even the handling of waste are part of the mission and thematic delivery.

If your mission is about conservation of resources, people see the conflict when you waste resources in your food service or do not recycle. They know you are not committed when they see a conflict in delivery of the mission. So how do you keep the mission in mind while crafting a theme, designing media and developing programs? The interpretive planner should be involved in planning at the beginning of any new project, not in the middle. If the building and grounds are already designed, the opportunity to make them part of the mission delivery and theme are less likely.

Training is an important part of delivery of the mission as well. Staff and volunteers must know the mission and understand their role in delivery of the mission. The NAI Host course really helps all staff understand that role.

You should keep the interpretive planner involved throughout the design and fabrication of new buildings, exhibits or programs. There is a tendency in refinement of facilities and media for “mission drift” to occur. You may have started with great ideas about making the mission evident in the interpretive experience. They may get lost in the compromises of putting ideas on the ground.

Lisa Brochu and I teach interpretive planning courses about four or five times a year. Aligning the plan with the mission of the organization is a major focus of the course. These courses serve as a great way for consultants and contractors to add interpretive planning to their skills. These  also help managers and program supervisors to understand the planning process and learn to hire the write consultants and contractors. The next course is March 8-12, 2010, in Humacao, Puerto Rico, and a few seats are still available. You can learn more about the course and location here.

Lisa Brochu writes a weekly blog for NAI on interpretive planning and has written many blog articles on “mission.” You might enjoy reading through some of those. If you have questions about interpretive planning, do not hesitate to call her at 1-888-900-8283. We hope you’re ON A MISSION.

-Tim Merriman

One of the real plusses of interpretation is that many of us work and live in some wonderful places. While you can’t eat scenery, it certainly does nourish the soul and that has to be part of the paycheck for quite a few interpreters. And when you can share that magnificent locale with some engaging wildlife—so much the better.

It has been a real blessing in my life to be able to live and work on the edge of Monterey Bay for the past 23 years. No two days are ever the same on the bay, with an endless variety of birds, marine mammals and other creatures parading past the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Still, there are patterns in the seasonal occurrence of some wildlife, and you start to look for particular species at specific times.

January is the traditional peak of the gray whale migration past Monterey Bay. Most of those animals are moving in a line just a few hundred yards of the coast we often call the “whale highway” and they tend to cut across the mouth of Monterey Bay. However, a few of them take a scenic detour, hugging the edge of the bay, sometimes just beyond the surf line. These might be juveniles that are still learning the migration route, or seasoned veterans using the pounding surf and kelp beds to escape detection from marauding orca in the bay. Whatever the cause, I’m always on the lookout for those wandering gray whales exploring the shoreline in our part of the bay.

It must have been quite a sight when the Spanish first settled in this area, with a bay full of whales. Often, the carcasses of expired whales could be found on local beaches. California condors and grizzly bears cruised our beaches regularly, scavenging whale carcasses. In fact the holotype specimen of the California condor was collected at Pt. Pinos in Pacific Grove as the unfortunate specimen was searching the local beaches. Back then a beachcast whale carcass meant lunch for quite a few local critters. After reading those early accounts, I started thinking that it might be fun to have lunch with whales—especially if I don’t have to share with grizzlies.

It just so happens that the Aquarium’s restaurant, the Portola Café, has a commanding view of the bay. So my goal is to “have lunch with the whales” as often as possible, and I’m successful in finding a gray whale or two on over half my lunch breaks in late January. I had a special bonus this week with a thunderstorm moving over the bay while I was looking for my lunchtime whale. The sun had come out over one part of the bay, creating a rainbow against the shore—and up came my lunchtime whale! I had the mini-rainbow of the sunlight hitting the whale’s blow, against the larger rainbow from the passing thundershower.

As an interpreter, I just can’t keep those special wildlife moments to myself. I feel compelled to jump up and walk through the restaurant, pointing and shouting “Whale ho!” Fortunately, most of the diners are happy to have whales for lunch as well, so it’s a welcome intrusion.

With all the changes going on in the arctic feeding grounds for our gray whales, I’m growing a bit concerned about their long-term well being. Warming arctic waters are altering both the food supply and the timing of whale feeding and migration. So far the effects seem to be minor, but we’re watching carefully. I would certainly miss having lunch with the whales.

-Jim Covel

It is interesting that machinery and technology arouse fears among some people. The Luddites in the early 1800s were British textile artisans with concerns about power looms. Luddite has become a word to describe anyone hanging onto the past in the face of new technologies.

John Phillips Sousa, the famous composer, decried the invention of the phonograph when it first appeared. I wonder what he would think of an iPod or Internet radio.

Interpreters sometimes sound a bit technophobic. I hear friends who avoid technology and insist that interpretation does not need it. This technophobia or neo-Luddism is understandable. Those of us who are more mature (old if you wish) remember the camping trips and outdoor adventures that did not involve much technology. Even camping now often includes GPS units, wireless Internet, and other gadgetry.

I think some of the new technologies are going to create interpretive experiences for people that cannot easily be realized in less technological ways. Some examples have been around a long time. Field glasses and microscopes, as tools of science, are valued technology in interpretation. They take us up close to distant animals or scenery. They enlarge the microscopic world.

Bat detectors are wonderful devices. They translate the voices of bats down into the audible range of humans. It allows an interpreter to take folks out into the night to study bats through their feeding behavior and amazing communication abilities. It brings alive the night sky in ways that cannot easily be done through visual means.

Some of the new technologies combine the power of the Internet, video and Global Positioning Systems (GPS). Some use iPhones, iPods, and other high-tech communication devices that combine digital media. Apple’s Steve Jobs just announced the new iPad, a digital notebook with a color screen and an Internet connection. Like Amazon’s Kindle reader, it allows you to read books and newspapers, but the color feature gives it potential for more diverse media.

Often the uses of these new visual digital media are informational. Portable audio and video devices provide maps, self-guided tours, and even video media. They will become even more powerful as they get better at the interpretive approach to communication which includes making emotional connections. NAI’s annual media competitions have included award-winning audio tours for many years that use recordings of famous speeches by presidents and prime ministers to tell complex stories of war and international intrigue.

When I was ten years old, my parents stopped at the Will Rogers Museum in Oklahoma on a driving trip to Texas. I heard the first audio exhibit ever for me in the form of Will Rogers telling jokes about Congress and the political times. It was funny and memorable. It started my interest in knowing more about Will Rogers and his unique contribution to humor, politics and cinema.

Geoquest and Acoustiguide recently joined Interpretation Australia Association and City of Townsville as sponsors of the upcoming NAI International Conference in Townsville, Australia, April 13-17, 2010. Geoquest is using these new digital video technologies with iPods and iPhones (pictured above) to interpret national parks and other natural and cultural heritage sites and stories. Acoustiguide has been an important audio and multimedia tour provider for a very long time in our profession (pictured at right). This conference is a great way to get better acquainted with their technologies and capabilities to tell interpretive stories. See you in Australia.

- Tim Merriman

I’ve been reading some of the claims in the popular press that scientists have their doubts about climate change. This just doesn’t make sense knowing that the vast majority of reputable scientists support the findings that the climate is changing and we humans are contributing significantly to that change. After recent conversations with both scientists and journalists, I think I know where this may be coming from.

First, every good journalist tries to present a balanced picture, representing both sides of the story. Add to that the challenge that many newspapers and magazines are struggling to stay in business. Every good reporter knows controversy sells news, so as the media increase their competition for our attention and our dollars, the trend is to present stories from an increasingly controversial angle. Now enter the scientists.

Good scientists are always critical of their work and the work of fellow scientists. One of the reasons we trust the results of the scientific process is that scientists themselves are always challenging the rigor of their processes, trying to identify and address gaps or weaknesses in order to strengthen the reliability of their results. Every good scientist is well aware of both the strengths and the weaknesses of their research, and they try to eliminate or control those weaknesses as much as possible. Part of the ongoing scientific discussion about climate change involves ways to further reduce variance in the models, to collect more accurate data. However, those discussions do not suggest a lack of confidence in the findings about climate change. The current models predict phenomena that we are observing with increasing regularity, lending further credence to their accuracy.

In an effort to find a good story, some reporters have seized upon that questioning process and blown it far out of proportion, suggesting that there is large scale doubt about current climate change models. The most recent example was the story that broke in November about a group of scientists at five institutions, including East Anglia University that were exchanging e-mails about the data they were using to estimate climate change factors several hundred years ago. Computer hackers accessed the e-mail messages, did a word search to find any phrases that suggested controversy, and then selected these phrases to manufacture a story of scientific doubt and deception that was entirely unfounded. The Associated Press assigned five reporters to examine those e-mails in their entirety, and their conclusion was that the original story was extremely deceptive and without merit. (You can read the entire AP story here.)

The popular media plays a large role in shaping our views on issues, but we should also look at the scientific literature and other respected, responsible sources to make sure we have an accurate, balanced perspective. It’s one thing for a scientist to state an opinion in the newspaper, and quite another for that scientist to argue his case in a peer-reviewed journal, where other scientists are convinced about the merits of the argument.

-Jim Covel

It’s an old saying. It’s a reminder that the choir may not need the sermon as much as others. Interpreters can easily end up being the friendly entertainment for the “choir.” They are the easy audience to attract.

In 1980 I moved to Pueblo, Colorado, to run a one-year old nature center. It had been started by the local Audubon chapter. We lived initially on federal revenue sharing grants. President Reagan took office two months after I arrived and he and the Congress quickly eliminated the federal revenue sharing program. I learned that I had three months to find funding to support our staff of two or watch the center die.

I had been a state park interpreter before this job as a nonprofit director. Preaching to the choir was common in state parks. I started by doing just that at the nature center. It was easy to do. I would advertise a 6 AM bird hike on Saturday and three Audubon members would show up. They didn’t need me to take them birdwatching but we all enjoyed these social outings. I finished each one with some concern that no revenue resulted and it was the same three or four people each week. This was a free program. We needed money, more members and to have some impact on those not already very interested in nature.

We discussed our options and decided we needed a fee-based program that introduced new people to birding. We came up with “Breakfast with the Birds.” We asked local markets for donated bakery goods and juices. We started the program at 8 AM, not 6 AM. Those new to birding would not want to get up at the crack of dawn. We charged $5 for this introduction to birding, continental breakfast and fun in the outdoors with new folks, not the “choir.”

We would have thirty to fifty show up and would make a good profit for this struggling but growing nature center. Some would also join us as members. We taught participants about birding and birdfeeding at home. We sold birdfeeders and bird seed mixtures at our gift shop. These were our first customers for those products. We met people who would not have considered a 6 AM birdwalk, but were interested in birds. Our choir didn’t show up. They were out birding long before these events began.

When I think of the challenge of building a membership at a nature center, I know there will be a natural audience who is already interested – our “choir.” It’s great to do some programming for them but not be totally focused there. Building constituents often means thinking about “potential markets.” Who might join us and be interested if we design for them? Tens of millions of people feed birds at home so they are a potential audience for any new nature program.

Cultural programs are similar. You can plan programming for the history buff and they are out there. Most organizations need a broader audience to support their efforts. If you plan for the potential audiences at a historic house, they might be those interested in geneaology or antiques.

We still need the “choir,” those already interested in our natural and cultural history programs and sites. They make great volunteers, serve on the Board, and will bring their friends. But we build stronger constituencies by thinking about who is not coming, but has some interest in our mission. They will respond to a softer approach and may one day be part of the choir.

-Tim Merriman

It used to be that mentioning someone’s “frame of mind” was a reference to their mood, outlook, or attitude. However, “frame of mind” may be taking on a new meaning. That term is now being used to describe the way we look at various concepts and issues. The frame around a photo or painting has a lot to do with how much of the image we see and can influence the way we perceive the image. Applying that concept to cognition, you might say that we have frames in our minds composed of values, beliefs, experiences, education. Those mental frames can heavily influence what aspects of an issue you attend to, how you perceive events and issues, and how you respond to the world around you.

There’s nothing particularly new or surprising about this idea. Tilden’s first principle speaks to the idea of relevance for our audience. We all know that tying messages to the personal experiences or values of our audience helps ensure the effectiveness of our communication efforts. Framing is a variation on this theme: We can increase our effectiveness by framing an idea or issue using values and perspectives that resonate with our audience.

This can be particularly useful when interpreting controversial topics. In my work at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, I have the opportunity to interpret evolution, conservation, and climate change—topics where there are many perspectives, as various people view these topics through a variety of frames. Rather than debate the merits of these different perspectives with a guest, it’s far more productive to find a common frame through which to approach the topic. For example, when conversing about climate change with someone who may be skeptical about the topic, I might start instead by talking about our escalating energy bills or fuel costs and how we can save money by conserving energy (which also helps address production of greenhouse gasses).

As an interpreter, it’s also important to remember that you have frames as well, frames that have a lot to do with how you both perceive and present events, ideas, and observations. You can improve your effectiveness and versatility by exploring other perspectives and becoming familiar with other ways your audience may frame an issue. Practice using multiple frames that may relate to topics and themes you interpret. It can help you make better connections between your audience and the resources you interpret.

Of course that old meaning of frame of mind still counts as well. Every message connects better when it’s delivered with a smile and backed up with that positive enthusiasm interpreters are famous for. Your positive attitude is particularly important when addressing the serious challenges and issues that are increasingly present in interpretation today. Using the right frame and a positive frame of mind, you can inspire confidence in your audience to take on the challenges we all must address in the 21st century.

I was just asked this challenging question by email and thought I might as well address this big question here. It’s too much for a blog articles, but I’ll give it an effort and you be the judge.  Keep in mind, this is my opinion only and others may land in different places.

In 2006 NAI and about 25 other nonprofit associations and federal agencies dealt with this among other questions in the Definitions Project funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in collaboration with the Institute for Learning Innovation. The result of that effort is a lexicon of definitions hammered out by the group and posted at definitionsproject.com.

A list of definitions alone does not address this question. I personally believe they are closely related fields that have evolved in the hands and minds of people who do both routinely at non-formal sites such as parks, historic sites, zoos, museums, aquariums and tour companies. Still there are some subtle differences.

Interpretation is defined by National Association for Interpretation as a “mission-based communication process that forges emotional and intellectual connections between the interests of the audience and meanings inherent in the resource.” The word “mission-based” in the NAI definition acknowledges that interpreters have to be of service to the organizational mission. In tough budgets we are gone if not of fundamental service in achieving the organizational mission. Many interpretive programs have been created as “interpretainment,” entertaining programming, sometimes with no management function. Invariably these programs die in periods of austerity such as in the current recession.

Forging emotional and intellectual connections indicates the “social marketing” role of interpretation. Tilden introduced that in his classic book, Interpreting Our Heritage. He quoted from a National Park Service administrative manual, “Through interpretation, understanding, through understanding, appreciation, through appreciation, protection.” We are trying to encourage people to understand and think deeply about resources and their meanings. Sam Ham’s recent presentation at the NAI National Workshop and article in the fall 2009 Journal of Interpretation Research explain the social science research that supports this concept. We encourage stewardship of resources through the interpretive approach to communication.

Education is usually, but not always, more oriented toward learning. One definition of education is “Education is the process of developing an individual’s knowledge, values, and skills and encompasses both teaching and learning.” If you view education as gaining knowledge, then interpretation is a bit more oriented toward creating emotional connections along with the gain in knowledge. The environmental education definition from the Definitions Project is, “A learning process that increases people’s knowledge and awareness about the environment and associated challenges, develops the necessary skills and expertise to address the challenges, and fosters attitudes, motivations, and commitments to make informed decisions and take responsible action. (UNESCO, Tbilisi Declaration, 1978)” This adds the responsibility to “make informed decisions and take responsible action.” That is similar to the “building stewardship” responsibility in most interpretive organizations.

When teachers or educators ask an interpreter for a program, they come at it with different motivations. Some want a great inspirational day at the park or museum with their kids. Interpretive programs are usually designed to do that. If a teacher or educator wants experiences that support specific learning objectives at school, that is an educational activity. Good interpreters are educators when they need to be. They know how to work thoughtfully to create activities that help the children do better with specific learning objectives that will be tested against statewide standards. They likely take a somewhat different approach interpretively when the teacher suggests the outing is to have fun and make a connection with natural or cultural resources.

Some natural and cultural heritage organizations define what they do as education and they often state cognitive objectives such as, “The guest will be able to name and describe the three major cultures of aboriginal people who lived in this area.” They want to measure a growth in knowledge or retention of information. The social science research suggests that people do not usually retain facts from programs. Also, there is no well supported relationship between increased knowledge and increased stewardship. You can motivate people to memorize information without any affection for the resource at all.

I personally prefer an emphasis in education on critical thinking skills and inspiring deeper thought and conversations. Both interpretation and education value that in most organizations. Retaining facts or information has its place in interpretation and education, but I don’t think it’s the only thing or necessarily the most important thing in most cases.

Interpretation is a method of communication and effective educators use interpretive approaches that engage the learner. Education is somewhat more focused on intellect and interpretation on emotional connections. Both are important in whole-brained learning where knowledge is integrated with our life experiences to be of greater value.

This is a discussion that has been going on throughout the forty years I have been working in this profession. It is a valuable conversation to have. We should know what we believe about what we do and why we believe it. And I’m sure my thoughts won’t be enough explanation for everyone, but let’s have the conversation. What do you think?

-Tim Merriman

I watched another wonderful museum close down in my community this week. I loved wandering through this institution, looking at the exhibits, the collections of objects that represented great stories of people and events. And yet the museum had experienced declining attendance and financial support in recent years. Unfortunately, this story is repeated many times around the country every year.

Many of us manage natural or cultural resources as part of our duties as interpreters. These resources could take the form of a natural area, a historic site, a collection of cultural objects or nature specimens, or many other possibilities. I’ve been giving more and more thought to the difference between managing these things as artifacts and managing them as assets.

An artifact can be defined as some tangible object or collection of objects, usually human-made. However, a secondary definition is that of something that is left behind or remains from an earlier event or process. That secondary definition can suggest artifacts are relicts that may have limited relevance in our current lives, and may therefore have limited value. If we focus strictly on their collection and preservation, we can inadvertently reinforce that perspective.

An asset can be defined as a useful or valuable quality, person, or thing; also an advantage or resource. Assets are usually managed in a way that maintains and/or increases their value. That value can be defined by the market, by the community or by other institutions. So in managing an asset, the wise manager tries to determine how it is valued and by whom, and then looks for ways to increase that value. Makes sense for a stock portfolio or real estate, but what if we looked at our interpretive resources that way?

In the case of my local museum, the community that built that museum has changed over time. Perhaps the conditions that originally created value for this asset have changed and the organization can benefit from re-defining itself with the current community and re-establishing a new value as an asset to that community. I guess that might be like increasing the “curb appeal” of an older home in a changing neighborhood.

In my work helping to inspire audiences to support ocean conservation, I focus on this perspective frequently. If we view fisheries as artifacts, relicts of a past era when the ocean was seen as an inexhaustible resource, but now broken and without value in the future—there is little reason to care for the future of the oceans. But if we look at ocean resources as important assets with economic as well as other current values, now we’re willing to restore that value and cultivate that asset.

It’s entirely a matter of perspective. We can view resources as artifacts or as assets, and manage them accordingly. Personally, I look at the natural and cultural resources around us as assets that nature and human kind have invested in across decades and eons. This legacy isn’t a relict, rather it’s the accumulated wealth that is now ours to manage. We can continue to grow this wealth and prosper, or we can squander it. Asset or artifact?

-Jim Covel

This week I am teaching an interpretive planner’s course with Lisa Brochu at Eldorado Nature Center in the heart of Long Beach, CA, in the Los Angeles basin. It was amazing to drive through the tangle of freeways and down urban streets and find ourselves on a wooded parking lot with trails meandering over and around the water features on the 100 acre property. One guest commented to me that he comes back again and again to escape. He referred to it as a nature island in the heart of the city. He didn’t expect to find it on his first visit.

It is interesting to meet city folks who value hiking trails hidden in among the rush of this major metropolitan area. A new study suggests that people who backpack and hike trails frequently are likely to become donors and supporters of conservation organizations later in life. Those who only go sightseeing or fishing are less likely to become serious conservation supporters. These findings were reported in October on PLoSONE, an online publication of the Public Library of Science.

The research was done by Oliver Pergams of U. of Illinois Chicago and Patricia Zaradic, director of the Red Rock Institute in Pennsylvania,  along with Peter Kareiva, chief scientist at the Nature Conservancy. Their study showed a ten to twelve year lag between the period of active hiking and becoming a donor and/or supporter. Their work suggests that there is an overall decline of people who get into serious hiking and outdoor experiences. Our urban, wired lifestyles do not encourage exploration of deeper outdoor experiences.

This all leads back to, “What do we do about it?” The obvious suggestion is that we get kids outdoors earlier and more often. I have written several blogs on the No Child Left Inside movement and the importance of supporting it. We finally have a political coalition that is creating real buzz among legislators and it is leading to more money for environmental education.

I still have questions. City folks may not become backpackers very commonly even if they have outdoor experiences as children. How do we create engagement with new generations of people who will not ever choose the deeper experience with nature? We need to better understand this relationship between life experiences and stewardship commitment better. How does an urban nature center, like Eldorado Nature Center, make a difference for city dwellers. It’s not backpacking but it does provide outdoor experience that many value. How can we protect or build more open space into urban life? Eldorado is an example of a natural area built totally on bare farm ground of forty years ago. It is in a great location to influence a lot of people. Children need a starting place and an urban nature center provides that.

It is a daunting but important challenge for all of us who want to protect natural areas. There has to be advocacy for these areas or they could slowly disappear with changing political priorities.  I value these urban escapes. They give kids and adults a place to begin hiking that leads to greater outdoor adventures in the future. I fear the decline in avid hikers and backpackers will continue.

The researchers mentioned above express their concerns at the end of their article:

Given the trends of increasing US population diversity, urbanization, and economic and cultural changes, we fear that the currently narrow base of conservation NGO supporters will become even narrower. To avoid becoming marginalized, the conservation movement will need to diversify its outreach strategy, engaging novel and diverse constituencies. Strategies for doing so may either require more of the ‘‘right types’’ of nature exposure, or entirely different approaches to ethnic or socioeconomic groups who are not likely to engage in hiking and backpacking. Ultimately, the fate of biodiversity and intact ecosystems may depend less on rates of habitat loss or invasive species, than on public perception of whether conservation should be supported at all.

Patricia A. Zaradic1*, Oliver R. W. Pergams1,2, Peter Kareiva

I share their concerns.

-Tim Merriman