FORU THE GEORGEM WRIGHT - georgewright.org · • The GWS Natural Resource Management Award goes to...

THE GEORGE W R I G H T

FORUM volume 23 number 4 • 2006

Justice

Origins Founded in 1980, the George Wright Society is organized for the purposes of promoting die application of knowledge, fostering communication, improving resource management, and providing information to improve public understanding and appreciation of the basic purposes of natural and cultural parks and equivalent reserves. The Society is dedicated to the protection, preservation, and management of cultural and natural parks and reserves through research and education.

Mission

The George Wright Society advances the scientific and heritage values of parks and protected areas. The Society promotes professional research and resource stewardship across natural and cultural disciplines, provides avenues of communication, and encourages public policies that embrace these values.

Our G o a l

The Society strives to be the premier organization connecting people, places, knowledge, and ideas to foster excellence in natural and cultural resource management, research, protection, and interpretation in parks and equivalent reserves.

Board of Directors

DwiGHT T. PlTCAITHLEY, President • Las Cruccs, New Mexico

ABIGAIL B. MILLER, Vice President • Skelburne, Vermont

GILLIAN BOWSER, Secretary • Bryan, Texas

REBECCA CONARD • Murfrcesboro, Tennessee

ROLF DlAMANT • Woodstock, Vermont

SUZANNE LEWIS • Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming

DAVID J. PARSONS • Florence, Montana

STEPHANIE TOOTIIMAN • Seattle, Washington

WILLIAM H. WALKERJR. • Hemdon, Virginia

STEPHEN WOODLEY • Chelsea, Quebec

Executive Office

DAVID HARMON, Executive Director

EMILY DEKKER-FIALA, Conference Coordinator P. O. Box 65 • Hancock, Michigan 49930-0065 USA

1-906-487-9722 • fax 1-906-487-9405 [email protected] • www.georgewright.org

The George Wright Society is a member of US/ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites—U.S. Committee) and IUCN-The World Conservation Union.

© 2006 The George Wright Society, Inc. All rights reserved. (No copyright is claimed for previously published material reprinted herein.)

ISSN 0732-4715

Editorial and manuscript submission guidelines may be found on our website at www.georgewright.org/forum.html. Text paper is made of 50% recycled fibers. Printed by Book Concern Printers, Hancock, Michigan.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.georgewright.org

http://www.georgewright.org/forum.html

THE GEORGE W R I G H T

FORUM volume 23 number 4 • 2006

Society News, Notes & Mail • 2

History Repeats? Hydro Dams and the Riverine Ecosystems of Mesoamerica:

The Case of La Amistad Biosphere Reserve, Panama, and its Implications

William 0. McLamey • 6

Targeting Conservation Easements to Reduce Impacts of

Private Land Development on Protected Areas

Tony Prato • 13

Island-specific Ecological Release of Small Mammals in Lake Michigan and Potential

Consequences for Ground-nesting Birds: The Importance of American Beech

(Fagus grandifolia) in Structuring Small-mammal Communities

J. N. Rosemier and D. J. Flaspohler • 24

Environmental Justice

Gillian Bowser, guest editor

Through the Eyes of a Child: The Many Aspects of Environmental Justice

Gillian Bowser • 33

Fear of the Boom Box: Death Knell for Our Public Lands?

Audrey Peterman • 37

Managers' Perceptions of Issues in Serving Racial and Ethnic Minorities in Urban Parks

Michael A. Schuett and Gillian Bowser • 40

The Challenge of Environmental Justice for Children:

The Impact of Cumulative Disadvantageous Risks

Corliss Wilson Outley • 49

Is Curiosity Good for Anybody?

Henry F. Howe • 57

The Concrete Jungle

Gillian Bowser • 63

On the cover:

The cover photo, as well as the others that accompany the environmental justice articles in this

issue, depict activities at the Old Stories, New Voices camp for inner-city youth.

All photos courtesy of Gillian Bowser.

SOCIETY NEWS, NOTES & MAIL Barr, Graber win seats on Board

Brad Barr and David Graber were the winners in the 2006 GWS Board election. It was a

three-way race for two open seats being vacated by retiring Board members David Parsons

and Dwight Pitcaithley. Barr is a senior policy advisor in the National Oceanic and Atmos

pheric Administration's National Marine Sanctuary Program; he is the first NOAA employ

ee to serve on the Board. Graber is a senior science advisor for the National Park Service,

based at Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks. They defeated Frank McManamon, the

NPS chief archeologist, in the balloting. The two new Board members will serve three-year

terms beginning in January 2007.

2 0 0 7 GWS award winners named

At its annual meeting in November, the GWS Board evaluated nominations for the 2007

round of Imagine Excellence, the GWS awards program. The awards are bestowed every two

years at the GWS conference. The 2007 awards will be given at a banquet to be held April

19 during the conference in St. Paul (for more, see next item). The 2007 winners are:

• The George Melendez Wright Award for Excellence, the Society's highest honor, goes to

George B. Hartzog,Jr. Hartzog is being cited for his leadership as the seventh director

of the National Park Service. During his tenure, Hartzog gave new emphasis to scientif

ic research in support of natural resource management and reached out to under-repre

sented and under-served groups, among many other accomplishments.

• The GWS Communication Award is being given to NPS historian Harry Butowsky. He

has been webmaster for the agency's history website since 1999, and through his per

sonal efforts the site has become a major repository for information about NPS. Butow

sky has made the full text of more than 2,000 documents, including numerous rare pub

lications, available to the public on the site.

• The GWS Cultural Resource Management Award will be received by Nelly Margarita Robles Garcia, widely regarded as the "mother" of cultural resources management in

Mexico. An archeologist with the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia (National

Institute of Anthropology and History), Robles has been a tireless and effective advocate

for a resource management approach to the cultural heritage of Mexico and Latin

America.

• The GWS Natural Resource Management Award goes to Charles van Riper III of the

U.S. Geological Survey's Sonoran Desert Station. Throughout his career, van Riper has

conducted research that provides information needed by protected area managers to

make informed decisions. A successful field scientist, author, editor, conference con

venor, and ombudsman, van Riper's work has had a marked impact on the quality of

resource protection in the National Park Service and beyond.

• The Board also decided to present a GWS Special Achievement Award to Gary Machlis, a professor at the University of Idaho and visiting senior scientist to the National Park

2 The George Wright Forum

Service. A sociologist, Machlis is being cited for his scholarly achievements in studying

the social context of protected areas, for his instrumental efforts in establishing the

Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units (CESU) Network, and for helping to design and

establish the highly successful Canon Parks Science Scholars Program.

GWS2007 begins to take shape Preparations are in high gear for the 2007 GWS conference, "Rethinking Protected Areas in

a Changing World," which will be held April 16-20 at the Crowne Plaza Riverfront Hotel in

St. Paul, Minnesota. In June 2006 an electronic Call for Proposals was issued and dissemi

nated widely. In response, over 410 abstracts were received by the October 6 deadline. The

abstracts were evaluated at a two-day meeting held in early November, and a draft conference

program has been developed. Over 130 concurrent sessions are planned, along with a multi-

day poster session. There will also be six plenary sessions, as follows (titles of some talks are

tentative):

• Monday, April 16 (morning), "Climate Change: Impacts on Parks and Protected Areas."

Speaker: Lisa Graumlich, executive director, Big Sky Institute; professor, University of

Montana.

• Monday, April 16 (afternoon), "Ecosystem-Level Conservation: From Islands to Net

works." Speaker: Harvey Locke, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.

• Tuesday, April 17, "Native Peoples and Protected Lands." Moderator: Charles Hudson,

public information officer, Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission. Speakers:

Roberta (Bobbie) Conner, director, Tamastslikt Cultural Institute; Tom Lee, former

chief executive officer, Parks Canada.

• Wednesday, April 18, "A Report from the Scholars' Forum on the National Park Service

and Civic Reflection." Speaker: Daniel Ritchie, chancellor emeritus, University of Den

ver, and chair, Education Committee, National Park System Advisory Board.

• Thursday, April 19, "Media Realities: The Complex Environment of News Reporting."

Speaker: Elizabeth Arnold, former chief environmental correspondent, National Public

Radio.

• Friday, April 20, "Lessons from 1491." Speaker: Charles C. Mann, author of 1491:New

Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus.

Two meetings will run concurrently with GWS2007: the NPS national Inventory &: Moni

toring Network meeting, and the NPS Midwest Region Superintendents' Conference. Also,

the National Public Radio show Science Friday will devote the second hour of its show on

Friday, April 20, 2007, to topics taken from the GWS2007 program. For full details on the

conference, go to www.georgewright.org/2007.html.

New web pages highlight biosphere reserves, World Heritage

The GWS recently launched a pair of matching web resource pages on UNESCO's Man and

the Biosphere (MAB) Program (with the main focus on biosphere reserves) and on the

World Heritage Convention. The emphasis is on the U.S. position vis-a-vis these two pro-

Volume 23 • Number 4 (2006) 3

http://www.georgewright.org/2007.html

grams, and we've tried to give lots of solid factual information to counteract the misconcep

tions about these programs that exist among certain parts of the American public. You can

view these pages through our the links on our home page (www.georgewright.org)—you'll

find them toward the bottom of the page.

Changes coming to Forum in 2 0 0 7

Next year will bring a new look to The George Wright Forum. For most of its history, the

Forum has been published quarterly, and has always heen bound using a technique known

as "saddle stitching," which means that the journal is stapled on the spine and lies flat on a

table when opened. Starting next year, we will publish the Forum three times a year instead

of four, and "perfect bind" it, which means it will look like a paperback book. Please note that

the amount of content delivered to readers will actually increase. That's because we will be

expanding each issue to run 120-144 pages; currently, each issue runs 60-96 pages.The

new, longer format will enable us to continue to offer themed issues, but with more room to

offer additional articles unaffiliated with the theme. Our aim is to make sure each issue con

tains material that will appeal to a range of interests. Watch for the first of the "new" Forums

to arrive in your mailbox in late March or early April. As always, we'll welcome proposals for

articles or themes; see the guidelines at www.georgewright.org/forum.html.

C. Gordon Fredine, 1910 -2006

C. Gordon Fredine, a charter and life member of the George Wright Society, died in August

of this year at the age of 96. Born in St. Paul, Minnesota, Fredine was a 1932 biology gradu

ate of Hamline University and did graduate work in zoology at the University of Minnesota.

From 1935 to 1941, he was a biologist with the Minnesota Conservation Department, before

becoming assistant professor of wildlife at Purdue University. After serving in World War II,

Fredine worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for several years. He became chief nat

uralist with the National Park Service in 1955. His interest in the application of ecological

principles influenced the agency's research and wildlife management programs. In 1964, he

became acting chief of the NPS international affairs division, and helped develop the

agency's policy that led to increased international activities. After serving as staff director for

the Second World Conference on National Parks, Fredine retired from the Park Service in

1973. With Samuel P. Shaw, he co-wrote Wetlands of the United States (1956), which has

become known as the original wetlands inventory of the United States. He received Distin

guished Service Awards from the American Fisheries Society and the Department of the

Interior. He is survived by his wife of 72 years, Edith H. Fredine of Bethesda, Maryland, and

several children and grandchildren.

William R. Supernaugh, 1 9 4 5 - 2 0 0 6

GWS life member Bill Supernaugh, a career employee of the National Park Service, died in

November of this year. Supernaugh held a variety of positions within NPS, including posts

at the Albright Training Center, Natchez Trace and Blue Ridge parkways, Glen Canyon Na

tional Recreation Area, regional offices, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and, most

recently, Badlands National Park, from which he retired as superintendent. He was known

4 The George Wright Forum

http://www.georgewright.org)you'll

http://www.georgewright.org/forum.html

for his trademark handlebar mustache, easygoing manner, affability, and wry humor. Super-

naugh was active in the International Ranger Federation, Coalition of National Park Retirees,

and in the Association of National Park Rangers, where he managed the organization's men

toring program. His family has worked with ANPR to set up a donation account in his mem

ory. Donations to the account will be used in upcoming years to help ANPR members attend

their first Ranger Rendezvous. Donations may be sent to The William R. Supernaugh, Jr.,

Memorial Fund, c/o Wells Fargo Bank, 1301 Jackson Street, Golden, Colorado 80401.

Donors should list account number 7165422739 on the memo line of the check.


Now, imagine that decades into thefuture the exact same activities were pro-posed for six more states. It is easy to imag-ine what comes next: Conservationists rushto the barricades, biologists predict the con-sequences, volumes of correspondence landon the desks of elected officials and bureau-crats, alternatives are proposed, fundraisingcampaigns are launched....

The second half of this scenario isbeing enacted right now, not in the conti-nental United States, but just to the south,and the impact stands to be felt in most ofthe national parks, biosphere reserves andprotected areas of the Mesoamerican isth-mus, stretching for over 1,000 miles fromChiapas (Mexico) to the Choco (Colom-bia). This is what will occur in Meso-america if current plans for development ofhydropower to industrialize the region inthe name of free trade are realized.According to an inventory carried out byConservation Strategy Fund, there arepresently 381 dams proposed for the region

(Burgues Arrea 2005) and, while the damsand the economic policies they reflect arebeing protested, the arguments advancedstem mainly from sociocultural concerns(or, in a few cases, concern for what areessentially touristic resources). The coun-tries potentially affected (Mexico, Belize,Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicara-gua, Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia) donot lack for competent biologists, and arewell populated by environmental and con-servation organizations at all levels from thevery local to the global giants. Yet to datealmost no one has seen fit to focus on therivers beyond those reaches that would bedirectly affected by dams and impound-ments, or to draw on the disastrous andwell-documented experience from verysimilar rivers in the Caribbean islands.

The precedent is from the West Indies.The greater part of the aquatic biota ofsome of the larger West Indian islands hasalready been eliminated. The best-docu-mented cases are from Puerto Rico and

The George Wright Forum6

History Repeats? Hydro Dams and the Riverine Eco-systems of Mesoamerica: The Case of La AmistadBiosphere Reserve, Panama, and its Implications

William O. McLarney

IMAGINE THAT A THIRD OF ALL THE FISH SPECIES, including virtually all the larger species thatcontribute to fisheries, plus most of the crayfish, were eliminated from six states of the UnitedStates. And assume that this and consequent secondary effects on riverine ecosystems,including several large rivers lying within national parks and forests, were documented in thescientific literature. And let us suppose that the blame for this damage could clearly beassigned to a single type of human activity, undertaken without adequate prior considerationof ecosystem effects.

Guadeloupe, where nearly all rivers havebeen dammed, resulting in complete elimi-nation of native fish and shrimps abovesome dams, and drastic reductions in everycase. In Puerto Rico, this has been docu-mented to result in increases in sedimenta-tion, changes in the aquatic insect commu-nity, and increases in algal biomass—inother words, gross alteration of the ecosys-tem with effects that undoubtedly extendbeyond rivers and streams.

Everyone knows about the effects ofdams on the Pacific and Atlantic salmons ofNorth America. While the rivers of Meso-america may not boast such charismaticfishes, the potential for damage, in terms ofthe number of species affected, is greater. Asa consequence of the narrowness of the isth-mus, the rivers of the region are necessarilyshort and thus intimately connected to thesea. And Mesoamerica, like the Caribbeanislands, has been relatively isolated overgeologic time, so that the primary freshwa-ter fish fauna is limited. As in the islands,groups of marine origin have had an advan-tage in dispersal, and many of the “freshwa-ter” fishes of the region are diadromous;that is, they need access to salt water atsome stage in order to complete their lifecycle.

The habit of diadromy extends to closeto 100% of the species of shrimp, whichinhabit the river systems up to the highestheadwaters, beyond the reach of any fishes.In Puerto Rico, shrimps have been shownto account for the majority of secondaryproduction in streams. Seemingly paradox-ically, the higher one climbs, the greater theproportion of the biomass in streams ismade up of forms which require access tothe sea. One dam on a river mainstem cancause gross alteration of ecosystems overhundreds of miles of rivers, creeks, and

rivulets draining thousands of square miles.In terms of the immediacy of dam

threats, one of the most critical watershedsin Mesoamerica is the Changuinola/Teribe,located in Panama’s Bocas del Toro Pro-vince, and it can be used to illustrate thekinds of situations conservationists need tobe more courageous in confronting. TheRio Changuinola and its major tributary, theRio Teribe, both arise in the La AmistadInternational Peace Park and Biosphere Re-serve (a UNESCO World Heritage site) andflow through the Palo Seco Forest Reserveand the territories of the Naso and NgobeIndian tribes before reaching the Carib-bean, where the Changuinola estuary lies atthe center of the 40,000-acre San San/Pondsak wetlands, a Ramsar site.

Bocas del Toro, located on the CostaRican border, has historically been isolatedfrom the rest of Panama; only in recent yearshas it been possible to drive to Bocas fromanywhere else in the country. The provin-cial economy has been dominated by themultinational banana industry, whichexports its product by sea from the port ofAlmirante or through Costa Rica. With thebanana business in decline and populationgrowing, the Panamanian government has alogical interest in fomenting development inBocas del Toro. And it so happens that theinland rivers of the province are consideredto represent the most outstanding hydro-power resource in the nation.

Most of Panama’s electrical supply isoil based and power costs are high, espe-cially in remote areas like Bocas del Toro.Arguments expounding on the need foralternative energy sources on the basis ofcost, security, and environmental considera-tions make sense to the Panamanian public,including those who live in the severalurban centers of Bocas del Toro. But it is


curious that this concern for cheap, cleanelectricity for public consumption arisesprecisely at the moment when Panama isfeeling pressure to hitch its wagon to thestar of free trade. Initiatives such as PlanPuebla-Panama (former Mexican presidentVicente Fox’s pet project to industrializethe Mesoamerican corridor) and SIEPAC(the Electrical Interconnection Network forthe Central American Nations) provideincentives to develop hydro resources thathave been recognized, but left alone, fordecades.

Not surprisingly, Panamanian dam pro-ponents oversell hydro dams as a “green”energy technology, most recently under therubric of the U.N.’s “Clean DevelopmentMechanism.” Since the dams, reservoirs,and all associated infrastructure would lieoutside La Amistad (although within PaloSeco), the published environmental impactassessments do not consider any impacts tothe World Heritage site. In fact, they arepresented as a benefit to La Amistad.

The argument goes like this. La Amis-tad is acknowledged to have problems withland invasion (much of it by indigenouspeoples who claim it was always theirs, any-way) and illegal hunting. Dam constructionwill improve access to the area, thus permit-ting ANAM (Panama’s environmentalauthority) to better police the park. Betteryet, a portion of hydro revenue will be ded-icated to this purpose—by building rangerstations, for example. There may be sometruth in these arguments (though access is atwo-edged sword), but they represent a pactwith the devil. We are being asked to acceptpossible benefits in return for certain dam-age.

The various species of diadromous fishand shrimps in the Changuinola/Teribe sys-

tem represent a huge variety of physicalcharacteristics and behaviors. They rangefrom large adult fish such as the bocachicaor hogmullet, capable of ascending the mostpowerful rapids, to bottom crawlers such asthe shrimps and various species of gobies,to passively drifting planktonic eggs and lar-vae. Some species (most famously theAmerican eel) migrate to the sea as adults toreproduce. Others spawn in fresh water andthe eggs and/or larvae are carried to the sea.(One of the most spectacular natural phe-nomena of Caribbean Central America isthe “tismiche,” the annual upstream migra-tion of massive groups of juvenile shrimpsand gobies, hatched in the estuaries.) Somemigrate during high water, others duringlow water. In all cases, our ignorance oftheir requirements is greater than ourknowledge. There is no way in the world todesign dam and reservoir systems to accom-modate all these creatures; experience inthe West Indies suggests that none of themcan be maintained with hydro dams inplace. (Of course we are told that hydro rev-enues will also be used to build facilities forinvestigators, so that presumably we will beenabled to document the extirpations.)

Virtually no historic information existson the fish fauna of the rivers of La Amistad,in large part due to their inaccessibility. Butrecently my institution (Asociacion ANAI, aCosta Rican nongovernmental organiza-tion) was able to train four Naso and Ngobeparataxonomists to carry out preliminarysurveys within the park. They were able tosurvey 17 sites, using seines, cast nets, andunderwater visual censusing techniques.Due to the extreme difficulty of access,more reliable quantitative methods, such aselectrofishing, were not an option; somesites required an hour of boat travel


upstream through whitewater, a five-hourhike in to a remote village, and then anotherthree-hours on foot the next day to reachthe park boundary.

The indigenous parataxonomistsfound 18 species of fish, of which seven(including four of the five largest species)were diadromous. The proportions of diad-romous fish at the study sites ranged from25% to (in three cases) 100%. In almost allcases, they also found both of the families ofdiadromous shrimp (Palaemonidae andAtyidae) known from the region.

These figures almost surely underesti-mate the importance of the diadromouscomponent. In our own surveys in theneighboring Sixaola/Telire and Estrellawatersheds of Costa Rica (which also arisein La Amistad and where hydro dam pro-posals are eventually almost a certainty) weusually find that in swift, rocky streams ofthe type surveyed in La Amistad the major-ity of individual fish in samples are smalldiadromous gobies (“chupapiedras”). Chu-papiedras are extremely difficult to capturewithout electrofishing equipment, or tovisually assess; they were the second mostabundant fish according to the parataxono-mists. Including a full count of these elusivefishes, we found that 70–91% of total fish inCosta Rican streams were of diadromousspecies.

It would be interesting to have informa-tion on biomass, but even without hard datait is easy to see how vital is the linkage of therivers of upland Mesoamerica to the sea. Ifwe consider that shrimp tend to be abun-dant, and are by far the largest non-fishaquatic forms, that the largest fish speciesare mostly diadromous, and that the diadro-mous chupapiedras are by far the mostabundant fish, it can be deduced that these

rivers, once cut off from the sea, would bebarren environments indeed, populatedalmost exclusively by insects and a fewspecies of small fish.

Looked at in terms of area potentiallyaffected, the possibilities are staggering. Ifonly the Chan-75 (Gavilan) dam, the lower-most proposed on the Rio Changuinolamainstem, were built, 799 sq mi of water-shed and 527 mi of permanent stream with-in La Amistad would be grossly biologicallydepleted. To this must be added the effectson the mainstem and tributaries down-stream in Palo Seco, the indigenous territo-ries, and below. Elimination of most aquaticproduction above Chan-75 would alsodrastically affect those species of fish (someof them valuable fishery resources) thatnever ascend to the park, but which dependon the gobies, shrimps, and other migratoryanimals for food.

The worst-case scenario just describedfor Bocas del Toro is ultimately a very seri-ous threat to all the undammed watershedson both sides of the continental dividealong the entire Mesoamerican isthmus.The possible outcome is the virtual disap-pearance of the characteristic Mesoameri-can river fauna—as has already happened inplaces like Puerto Rico and Guadeloupe.

The prospect is not hopeless. TheInter-American Development Bank with-drew consideration of financing one of thedams in Bocas del Toro (Bonyic, on the RioBon, tributary to the Teribe; Figure 1), cit-ing both cultural reasons and “potentialimpacts on stream ecosystems” (Mont-gomery 2005). At least one other majorpotential lender, HSBC Holdings ofLondon, would find it virtually impossibleto finance dams like those described hereunder their “Freshwater Infrastructure Sec-


Figure 1. Site of the proposed Bonyic Dam on the Rio Bon (Quebrada Bonyic) in Naso Indian territory, Bocas del Toro Province,Panama. Photo courtesy of William O. McLarney.


tor Guideline,” which, among other stipula-tions, specifically prohibits “impacts onWorld Heritage Sites and Ramsar sites.”

Non-biological arguments enter intoplay. A series of proposed dams on thePacuare River in Costa Rica, which had thebacking of no less a personage than formerpresident and Nobel laureate Oscar Arias,were defeated mainly because of the eco-

nomic importance of the Pacuare as a white-water rafting river. Plans for dams on theUsumacinta River of Mexico and Guate-mala have been shelved in deference to thehistoric and archeological importance ofsites that would have been flooded.

As in virtually all instances of dammingand flooding, there are human displacementissues involved. In Bocas del Toro, as in

many if not most cases in Mesoamerica,these issues overlap with the question ofindigenous rights. The relationship ofNative American societies to parks has oftenbeen an uneasy one, and intelligent discus-sion of the matter has been scarce. We arepresented on the one hand with the roman-tic vision of indigenous cultures as beingnaturally in harmony with their environ-ment, and on the other with the viewpointthat “the Indians” represent one of the prin-cipal threats to protected areas. Neitherviewpoint, in its extreme form, is construc-tive. The situation in Bocas del Toro may beinstructive.

The most commonly heard viewpoint(outside of the indigenous communitiesthemselves, which constitute the majority ofthe population in the province) is that partof the government’s job is to keep theIndians out of the park and that, apart frompolicing, one way to do so is to offer themthe benefits of the hydro projects (thoughthese may consist of little more than tempo-rary employment and moderately moreaffordable electricity for a while). However,large sectors of the Ngobe and the Naso,many of whom live far from the nearestpower source, are more concerned withstopping the dams than with their putativebenefits. In the field, the ANAI-trainedparataxonomists found themselves almostoversupplied with volunteers eager to helphold nets, count fish, and attend workshopsin the evening after the field work was com-pleted. When given the opportunity to con-nect “el parque” with their own lives in apositive way, the indigenous communitiesresponded by working to defend the pro-tected area.

For me as an aquatic biologist, the bio-diversity conservation issue transcendslines on a map. But that just happens to be

my handle on the question of hydro dams inMesoamerica. Indigenous communities,whitewater rafters, archeologists, and so onwill all defend their own interests first.Those who have a particular commitmentto protected areas should be no exception.

It is difficult to get a handle on howmany protected areas in Mesoamerica standto be affected, but La Amistad is not alone.Among the areas that would be affected byexisting dam plans are such other high-pro-file areas as the Rio Platano BiosphereReserve in Honduras. Presumably most ofthem have as part of their justification some-thing similar to this, the first justificationpresented for the establishment of the LaAmistad Biosphere Reserve: “to protect asignificant example of the biological diversi-ty of one of the richest faunal and floralzones which still remains largely unalteredin the Republic of Panama” (Alvarado1998).

The promise made is to UNESCO,which entity has typically eschewed aggres-sive “enforcement” measures. Governmentagencies throughout the region are underenormous economic and political pressuresto close their eyes to biodiversity issues ofthe less-visible sort. Conservation in Meso-america has traditionally focused on thetropical forest (of which, lest we forget, therivers are a part), and some organizationsmay have been lulled and backed into whatamount to conflicts of interest. For example,the Mesoamerican Biological Corridorproject was at one time listed as a “satelliteproject” of Plan Puebla-Panama—whichcan perhaps be seen as parallel, on theregional scale, to policing La Amistad withthe aid of hydro power revenues. Theaquatic and fishery biologists of the nineaffected countries have been inexplicablyasleep on the headwaters-to-the-sea con-


nection. And the various affected partieshave not been talking with each other verymuch.

There are, perhaps, in every potential-ly affected watershed—and certainly inevery one that I know about—local groupsand individuals taking on the hydro dam

issue on the basis of, if not biology, then cul-tural/indigenous concerns, local econom-ics, recreation, etc. This is as it should be,and protected area advocates and managersneed to find their place in this spectrum, atevery level from the most local to theregional.


ReferencesAlvarado, Ramon. Procedimiento para el Manejo Inicial de Parques Nacionales, dos Estu-

dios de Caso en Panama, 1998. M.S. thesis, University of Costa Rica–CATIE.Burgues Arrea, Irene. 2005. Inventario de Proyectos de Infraestructura en Mesoamerica.

Report by Conservation Strategy Fund to Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund.Montgomery, Robert H. 2005. Letter to Asociacion ANAI from Montgomery (Head, Envi-

ronmental and Social Unit, Private Sector Department, Inter-American DevelopmentBank).

William O. McLarney, ANAI, Inc., 1120 Meadows Rd., Franklin, North Carolina 28734;[email protected] or [email protected]

Counties in the western United Statescontaining protected areas (i.e., nationalparks, national monuments, wildliferefuges, and wilderness areas) are growingmore rapidly than counties without suchareas (Rasker et al. 2004). Undevelopedprivate lands adjacent to these protectedareas are especially vulnerable to economicgrowth, particularly rural residential devel-opment. Between 1970 and 2000, rural res-idential development in the Montana andWyoming portions of the Greater Yellow-stone Ecosystem, which includes Yellow-stone and Grand Teton national parks,increased 400% (Williams 2001). Thisdevelopment has degraded and fragmentedcurrent and potential grizzly bear habitat onprivate lands in the ecosystem. Continua-tion of this trend could jeopardize grizzlybear recovery in the region (Johnson 2001).Double-digit growth in residential subdivi-sions adjacent to the National Elk Refuge inJackson, Wyoming, has diminished winter

range for the 10,000 elk that use the refuge,and has displaced corridors that they use toreach summer range in Yellowstone andGrand Teton national parks (Howe et al.1997). Cumulative impacts of residentialdevelopment and resource extraction onlands surrounding Glacier National Park inwestern Montana threaten the park’s natu-ral resources (Keiter 1985; National ParksConservation Association 2002; Prato2003b).

A primary way land trusts can controleconomic growth and protect naturalresources on private lands adjacent to pro-tected areas is through conservation ease-ments. A conservation easement is a legallybinding agreement between a private organ-ization and landowner that limits certaintypes of land uses or prevents developmentfrom occurring on that property. It requiresthe landowner to voluntarily donate or sellcertain property rights, such as the right tosubdivide, to a private organization, such as


Targeting Conservation Easements toReduce Impacts of Private Land Development onProtected Areas

Tony Prato

IntroductionECONOMIC GROWTH CAN ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY of protected areas.Changes in ecological processes and natural resources stemming from economic growthinclude alterations in the availability of energy, water, and nutrients; lower soil and waterquality; greater incidence of exotic species; reduced biodiversity; increased exploitation ofspecies; and more fragmented landscapes (Adger and Brown 1994; Ojima et al. 1994;Turner and Meyer 1994; Vitousek et al. 1997; Pimm and Raven 2000; Solecki 2001; Foleyet al. 2005; Ikerd 2005).

a land trust, or a public agency. Cash com-pensation, tax benefits, and/or the desire toretain the open space character of a proper-ty are primary reasons why landownersgrant conservation easements. As of 2000,more than 1,260 land trusts protectedabout 1 million ha of land in conservationeasements in the United States (The NatureConservancy 2003).

A combination of limited budgets andincreasing ecosystem threats from econom-ic growth make it imperative to target theacquisition of conservation easements tomaximize ecological values per dollarexpended on easements, or, equivalently, tomaximize the efficiency of conservationeasements. This paper discusses several tar-geting criteria for developing efficient ease-ment acquisition plans.

Identifying an efficient easement acqui-sition plan does not mean a land trust willbe able to purchase all the conservationeasements called for in the plan. This canoccur due to unwillingness of somelandowners to sell conservation easementsor inability of landowners and land trusts toreach agreement on the prices and terms ofeasements. This article focuses on criteriafor developing efficient easement acquisi-tion plans, not the barriers to achievingthose plans.

Current targeting methodsNewburn et al. (2005) developed and

compared four criteria for allocating a fixedconservation budget to private land conser-vation efforts. These criteria are applicableto the selection of parcels for conservationeasements. The four criteria are: value-onlytargeting, value-loss targeting, value-costtargeting, and value-loss-cost targeting.Newburn et al. (2005) point out that “Anytargeting approach that ignores either vul-

nerability [of parcels to development] orcosts [of the conservation program] willresult in suboptimal targeting.” The value-only, value-loss, and value-cost targeting cri-teria are suboptimal or inefficient in thisregard because they ignore vulnerability ofparcels to development and/or costs ofacquiring easements. In particular, value-only targeting considers the ecological val-ues of easements, but ignores both the costsof acquiring easements and the vulnerabili-ty of parcels to development. Value-loss tar-geting considers the ecological values ofeasements and the vulnerability of parcelsto development, but ignores the costs ofacquiring easements. Value-cost targetingconsiders the ecological values of easementsand costs of acquiring easements, butignores the vulnerability of parcels to devel-opment.

Only the value-loss-cost targeting crite-rion considers all three elements: the eco-logical values of easements, the vulnerabili-ty of parcels to development, and the costsof acquiring easements. The original value-loss-cost targeting criteria proposed byNewburn et al. (2005) had two deficiencies.First, it assumed that development of a par-cel resulted in a total loss of ecologicalvalue. Second, it did not consider how tomake easement acquisition decisions overmultiple time periods. Both deficiencieswere alleviated by Newburn et al. (2006).

The targeting criteria discussed hereextend the work of Newburn et al. (2005,2006) by allowing a land trust to develop anefficient easement acquisition plan when:(1) the ecological values of conservationeasements cannot be measured in monetaryterms; (2) ecological values of conservationeasements for different parcels are spatiallycorrelated; and (3) the probabilities ofparcels developing are unknown. The tar-


geting criteria described here rest on twoassumptions: that there are only two typesof parcels, undeveloped and developed, andthat once a parcel is developed it cannotrevert back to an undeveloped state (i.e.,irreversibility).

Value-loss-cost criterionSince the targeting issues and criteria

described here build on the value-loss-costtargeting criterion developed by Newburnet al. (2005), this section describes that cri-terion. Applying the criterion to conserva-tion easements implies that parcels areselected for easements based on the ratio ofthe expected loss in ecological value to ease-ment acquisition cost. Expected loss in theecological value of a parcel integrates theecological values of easements and the vul-nerability of parcels to development. In par-ticular, the value-loss-cost criterion selectsparcels having the highest ratio of expectedecological loss (SU=PVU) to easementacquisition cost (C), where P is the proba-bility that an undeveloped parcel is convert-

ed to its highest-valued permitted devel-oped use, and VU is the ecological value ofthe parcel in its undeveloped state.Considering only permitted developed usesof a parcel eliminates uses that are disal-lowed by zoning restrictions (e.g., residen-tial and commercial development cannotoccur on parcels located in the 100-yearfloodplain). The original value-loss-costcriterion described by Newburn et al.(2005) assumed that development of a par-cel results in a complete loss of ecologicalvalue. For a conservation budget of B (i.e.,the amount of money the land trust has tospend on acquiring conservation ease-ments), the original value-loss-cost target-ing selects parcels for which SU/C > k* orSU > k*C, where k*C is the critical line andk* is the slope of the critical line (see Figure1). The term k* increases (decreases) as Bdecreases (increases).

If the ecological value of a developedparcel is greater than zero, then develop-ment of that parcel results in a partial loss inecological value. In this case, the expected


Figure 1. Value-loss-cost targeting criterion, where k*C is the critical line, SU1 = P1VU1 is the expected ecological loss for parcel 1,SU2 = P2VU2 is the expected ecological loss for parcel 2 when parcel conversion results in a full loss in ecological value, S'U1 = P1(VU1

– VD1) is the expected ecological loss for parcel 2, and S'U2 = P2(VU2 – VD2) is the expected ecological loss for parcel 2 when parcelconversion results in a partial loss in ecological value.

ecological loss from development of a par-cel is S'U = P(VU – VD) = P∆V, where VU isthe ecological value of the parcel if undevel-oped and VD is the ecological value of theparcel if converted to its highest-valued per-mitted developed use. Since developmentof a parcel is likely to reduce its ecologicalvalue, ∆V > 0. The revised value-loss-costcriterion evaluates parcels for acquisitionbased on the ratio of P∆V to C.

Figure 1 illustrates the application ofthe original and revised value-loss-cost cri-teria to two hypothetical parcels. A dot infront of the parcel number designates thecombination of SU and C for that parcel. Forexample, parcel 1 has an expected ecologi-cal loss of SU1 with the original value-loss-cost criterion, an expected ecological loss ofS'U1 with the revised value-loss-cost criteri-on, and an easement acquisition cost of C1.Parcel 2 has an expected ecological loss ofSU2 with the original value-loss-cost criteri-on, an expected ecological loss of S'U2 withthe revised value-loss-cost criterion, and aneasement acquisition cost of C2. The origi-nal criterion selects parcels 1 and 2 foracquisition because SU1 > k*C and SU2 >k*C.

When parcel development results inonly a partial loss of ecological value (asopposed to a full loss), it is still optimal toacquire parcel 1 because S'U1 > k*C. How-ever, it is not optimal to acquire parcel 2because S'U2 < k*C. Therefore, parcel 2 isselected for easement acquisition whendevelopment results in a full loss in ecolog-ical value but not when it results in a partialloss in ecological value for the relationshipsillustrated in Figure 1. In general, therevised value-cost-loss criterion can resultin a different selection of parcels for conser-vation easements than the original value-loss-cost criterion.

Accommodating non-monetary ecologi-cal values

Parcels have ecological value becausethey provide ecosystem services that aretypically not valued in the market place.Although economists have developed non-market valuation procedures for estimatingthe monetary value of ecosystem services(Prato 1998), use of these procedures isbeyond the reach of most land trusts. Con-sequently, land trust managers generallycannot express the ecological value ofparcels in monetary terms. Under these cir-cumstances, the value-loss-cost criterioncannot be applied unless ecological valuesof parcels are evaluated in non-monetaryterms. The latter can be done provided theland trust is able to score parcels based onthe ecological value of the multiple ecosys-tem services they provide. For example, if aland trust is able to score ecological valuesof parcels (with and without development)between 0 and 100, where 0 implies no eco-logical value and 100 implies maximumecological value, then VU and VU – VD arebetween 0 and 100. Undeveloped parcelsare then selected for easements based on thevalues for PVU/C or P(VU – VD)/C. Whenecological values are scored in the abovemanner, these ratios are expressed in termsof expected units of ecological loss per dol-lar spent on easement acquisition. Otherthings equal, the higher these ratios, themore desirable are the parcels for conserva-tion easements.

Land trusts can assign scores to VU andVD using a multiple-attribute evaluation(MAE) procedure in which the ecosystemservices provided by parcels are the attrib-utes. Application of a MAE procedurewould require the land trust to: (1) enumer-ate the multiple ecosystem services provid-ed by parcels; (2) develop measurable indi-


cators for all ecosystem services; (3) meas-ure the indicators and determine their rela-tive importance (or weights); and (4) use autility function to calculate scores for VU

and VD for all parcels. The utility functionintegrates the indicators for ecosystem serv-ices and their weights. Prato (2003a and2004) describe MAE procedures in moredetail.

Accounting for spatial correlation inecological values

Ecological values of parcels are spatial-ly correlated when the ecological value of aconservation easement on one parceldepends on whether or not nearby parcelshave easements. Selecting an optimal ease-ment acquisition plan when there is spatialcorrelation among ecological values neces-sitates comparing the overall ecologicalvalue of alternative spatial patterns of ease-ment acquisitions. To illustrate this proce-dure, suppose a land trust wants to select anoptimal easement acquisition plan from aset of three mutually exclusive, financiallyfeasible easement acquisition plans, namelyA1, A2, A3. Each of the three plans in thisset represents a particular spatial pattern ofeasement acquisitions. A plan is financiallyfeasible provided its present value cost isless than or equal to the present value of theconservation budget. Stated differently,financial feasibility requires

for all i=1, 2, 3, where PV[C(Ai)] is the pres-ent value acquisition cost of plan Ai and

is the present value of the budgets availablefor acquiring easements over a planninghorizon of T time periods.

For simplicity of exposition, suppose aland trust has identified three future spatialpatterns of parcel conversions in theabsence of new conservation easements,namely G1, G2, G3. If the land trust canassign probabilities to G1, G2, and G3, sayPG1, PG2, and PG3, respectively, then theexpected ecological losses with the threespatial patterns of parcel conversions arePG1L(G1), PG2L(G2), and PG3L(G3), respec-tively. PGi is the probability of pattern Gi andL(Gi) is the present value ecological losswith pattern Gi. The optimal easementacquisition plan for a planning period is theone that minimizes the maximum expectedpresent value ecological loss from parceldevelopment subject to the conservationbudget for that period. For example, ifPG2L(G2) exceeds PG1L(G1) and PG3L(G3),then G2 has the maximum expected presentvalue ecological loss. In this case, the opti-mal acquisition plan is to acquire conserva-tion easements in a manner that circum-vents the pattern of parcel conversionsimplied by G2. Referring to Figure 2, theoptimal easement acquisition plan is toacquire easements on parcels 1, 3, 6, 9, and16.

Handling uncertaintyUncertainty regarding future spatial

patterns of parcel conversions implies theland trust cannot assign probabilities to G1,G2, and G3. Although not considered here,it is also possible to account for uncertaintyin the cost of acquiring easements.Uncertainty about patterns of parcel con-version necessitates using a different proce-dure to determine the optimal parcel acqui-sition plan than the one used in the previ-


ous section. Selecting an optimal easementacquisition plan under uncertainty isexplained assuming that there is spatial cor-relation in the ecological values of parcels(see previous section).

Panel a of Figure 2 illustrates a hypo-thetical, feasible spatial pattern of easementacquisitions for an area consisting of 16parcels, referred to as A1. The x-entries inthe grid indicate that A1 involves acquiringeasements on parcels 1, 3, 6, and 15. Panelb in Figure 2 illustrates a particular futureparcel conversion pattern referred to as G2.The y-entries in panel b indicate thatparcels 1, 3, 6, 9, and 16 convert to devel-oped uses with G2 in the absence of conser-vation easements. With three feasible acqui-sition plans (i.e., A1, A2 and A3) and threefuture parcel conversion patterns (i.e., G1,G2, and G3), there are nine possible combi-nations of feasible acquisition plans andfuture conversion patterns.

The expected present value ecologicalloss for A1 given G2 occurs is determined bysumming the present value ecological lossesfor all parcels with that combination. Pre-sent value ecological losses are determinedby evaluating the matches and mismatchesbetween A1 and G2. In particular, there is amatch between A1 and G2 for parcels 1, 3,and 6 because the plan acquires easementson parcels 1, 3, and 6, and these parcels

would be developed without the easements.There is a mismatch for parcel 15 becauseA1 acquires an easement for this parcel, butG2 indicates the parcel is not developedeven without an easement. Additionally,there is a mismatch between A1 and G2 forparcels 9 and 16 because the plan says notto acquire easements on those parcels, butthose parcels would be developed withoutconservation easements. Therefore, thepresent value ecological loss avoided withA1 when G2 occurs is the sum of the presentvalue ecological losses for parcels 1, 3, and6 (i.e., those for which there is a match) des-ignated as ∆V12. Repeating this procedurefor all nine combinations of A1, A2, A3 andG1, G2, G3 gives a 3x3 matrix of values for∆V (see Table 1).

A common criterion for making deci-sions under uncertainty is the minimax cri-terion. The minimax criterion selects theeasement acquisition plan that minimizesthe maximum present value ecological lossfrom future conversion of parcels fromundeveloped to developed states unless thesocial cost of those conversions is unaccept-ably high (Bishop 1978; Prato 2005). Thefirst step in determining an optimal ease-ment acquisition plan based on the mini-max principle is to identify the easementacquisition plan that results in the maxi-mum present value ecological loss for each


Figure 2. Spatial pattern of easement acquisitions with plan A1 (panel a), and the spatial pattern of parcel conversions with G2

(panel b).

future parcel conversion pattern. This stepshows that the maximum present value eco-logical loss with G1 is 75 for A3, with G2 is65 for A2, and with G3 is 85 for A1 (see thelast row of Table 1). The second step is toselect as the optimal plan the one thatresults in the minimum ecological loss ofthe three maximum ecological losses identi-fied in the first step. Therefore, A2 is theoptimal easement acquisition plan for thevalues of ∆V given in Table 1.

Since land values and ecosystem serv-ices are likely to change over time, the landtrust should periodically update the opti-mal parcel acquisition plan. To illustratehow updating is done, suppose the landtrust has operated for five years under theinitial optimal acquisition plan (i.e., the spa-tial pattern of parcel acquisitions deter-mined using the minimax principle for thefirst five-year period). Updating has fivesteps. First, a revised set of developableparcels for the second five-year period isdetermined by excluding parcels for whichconservation easements were purchased orconversion to developed uses occurred dur-ing the first five-year period. Second, the setof possible parcel acquisition plans and setof future spatial patterns of parcel conver-sions are determined based on the revised

set of developable parcels. Third, the pres-ent value cost of the easements acquiredduring the first five-year period is subtract-ed from the initial present value budget toobtain a revised present value budget as ofthe beginning of the second five-year peri-od. Fourth, the set of spatial patterns of par-cel acquisitions determined in the secondstep is screened to eliminate parcel acquisi-tion patterns that are not financially feasiblebased on the revised present value budget.Fifth, an optimal easement acquisition planis determined for the second five-year peri-od by applying the minimax principle to therevised set of spatial patterns of parcelacquisitions and revised set of future spatialpatterns of parcel conversions. This adap-tive planning procedure is repeated as oftenas the land trust updates the optimal parcelacquisition plan.

Data and information requirementsThe original value-loss-cost criterion

requires a land trust to specify the probabil-ities of parcels converting to developedstates (P), and estimate the ecological valuesof parcels in their undeveloped states (VU).Additionally, the revised value-loss-cost cri-terion requires a land trust to estimate theecological values of parcels in their devel-


Table 1. Hypothetical present value ecological losses for three easement acquisition plans and three parcel conversion patterns.

oped states (VD). Both criteria require infor-mation on the present value cost of acquir-ing and maintaining easements and annualconservation budgets over the T-periodplanning horizon, as well as specify a dis-count rate (r).

Estimating the ecological values ofparcels can be streamlined by incorporatingparcel information in a geographic informa-tion system (GIS) and incorporating theGIS dataset and parcel selection criterion ina spatial decision support tool. A spatialdecision support tool is a knowledge-basedsystem that integrates data, information,and evaluation methods for the purpose ofidentifying and evaluating solutions to com-plex problems involving spatially distrib-uted information (Djokic 1993). Havingsuch a tool would make it easier for landtrusts to develop and update optimal ease-ment acquisition plans based on the proce-dures and informational requirementsdescribed above.

The value-loss-cost and minimax-based uncertainty criteria have differentdata and informational requirements. In theabsence of spatial correlation among eco-logical values of parcels, use of the value-loss-cost criterion requires a land trust tospecify the probabilities of parcels convert-ing to developed uses, or, in the presence ofspatial correlation, the probabilities of dif-ferent future spatial patterns of parcel con-versions. Use of the uncertainty criterionrequires a land trust to estimate the presentvalue ecological loss for each combinationof easement acquisition plan and future spa-tial pattern of parcel conversions. Both cri-teria require the land trust to estimate thepresent value acquisition costs for parcels.

It may be easier for a land trust to spec-ify alternative spatial patterns of parcel con-versions than to estimate the probabilities of

parcel conversions, unless conversion prob-abilities have already been estimated inland-use change studies for the area of inter-est. Specifying all future spatial patterns ofeasement acquisition requires eliminatingfrom consideration: (1) parcels unsuitablefor development because of their soil type,slope, and/or location relative to water bod-ies, floodplains, and environmentally sensi-tive areas; (2) parcels for which landownersare not interested in donating or sellingconservation easements; and (3) easementacquisition patterns that are unaffordabledue to limited conservation budgets. Limi-ted budgets would eliminate many devel-opable parcels from being considered forconservation easements, especially in areaswhere landowners are not willing to sellconservation easements without cash incen-tives from land trusts.

Summary and conclusionThis paper describes two kinds of cri-

teria a land trust can use for targeting acqui-sition of conservation easements: a value-loss-cost criterion and an uncertainty crite-rion. Use of the value-loss-cost criterionrequires a land trust to specify the probabil-ities of individual parcels converting fromundeveloped to developed states, or if thereis spatial correlation in ecological values ofparcels, the probabilities of future spatialpatterns of parcel conversions. The optimaleasement acquisition plan with the value-loss-cost criterion is determined by mini-mizing expected ecological loss from parcelconversions subject to the conservationbudget. Using the uncertainty criterionwhen there is spatial correlation in ecologi-cal values of parcels requires a land trust tospecify alternative spatial patterns of parcelacquisition and alternative future spatialpatterns of parcel conversion. Both criteria


accommodate full or partial ecological loss-es from parcel conversion from undevel-oped to developed states, and allow ecolog-ical values of parcels to be measured inmonetary or non-monetary terms.

Although these criteria described hereare flexible enough to accommodate a widerange of conditions, they have relativelyhigh informational requirements. Beforeadopting these criteria, land trusts shoulddetermine whether or not the benefit ofapplying the criteria (i.e., maximizing eco-logical value per dollar of easement acquisi-tion cost for a given conservation budget)exceeds the additional informational cost. Ifso, then application of the criteria results ina net gain. Otherwise, application of the cri-teria results in a net loss.

The conservation easement targetingcriteria described here can be adapted toprotected areas. For example, preservingbiodiversity, which is a high priority formost protected areas (see IUCN 1994 and

Davey 1998), can be given a higher weightthan other ecosystem services in determin-ing the overall ecological value of retainingparcels in an undeveloped state. This adap-tation would increase the likelihood ofacquiring conservation easements on pri-vate land parcels that are critical to preserv-ing biodiversity. For example, much of thegrowth in rural residential development inthe Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem hasbeen concentrated in more remote ruralareas (Glick and Haggerty 2000; Hansen etal. 2002). One study showed that 320 of the400 new homes randomly sampled in Gal-latin County, which covers a portion of theecosystem, were constructed in primewildlife habitat (Glick and Haggerty 2000).This ecosystem, and others experiencingrapid loss in open spaces and private landdevelopment, would benefit from thedesign and implementation of easementacquisition plans that target the preserva-tion of biodiversity.


ReferencesAdger, W.N., and K. Brown. 1994. Land Use and the Causes of Global Warming. New York:

John Wiley & Sons.Bishop, R.C. 1978. Endangered species and uncertainty: The economics of a safe minimum

standard. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 60, 10–18.Davey, A.G. 1998. Protected areas categories and management objectives. Appendix 2 in

National System Planning for Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,U.K.: IUCN, 49–55.

Djokic, D. 1993. Towards general purpose spatial decision support system using existingtechnologies. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference/Workshop on Inte-grating Geographic Information Systems and Environmental Modeling. Breckenridge,Colorado: N.p.

Foley, J.A., et al. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science 309, 570–574.Glick, D., and M. Haggerty. 2000. Land use planning in Greater Yellowstone: Is it making

the grade? Greater Yellowstone Report (winter).Hansen, A.J., R. Rasker, B. Maxwell, J.J. Rotella, J.D. Johnson, A.W. Parmenter, U. Langner,

W.B. Cohen, R.L. Lawrence and M.P.V. Kraska. 2002. Ecological causes and conse-quences of demographic change in the New West. BioScience 52, 151–162.

Howe, J., E. McMahon, and L. Propst. 1997. Balancing Nature and Commerce in Gateway

Communities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Ikerd, J. 2005. Sustainable Capitalism: A Matter of Common Sense. Bloomfield, Conn.:

Kumarian Press.IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland, and

Cambridge, U.K.: IUCN.Johnson, V.K. 2001. Trends in rural residential development in the Greater Yellowstone

Ecosystem since the listing of the grizzly bear, 1975–1998. Yellowstone Science 9, 2–9.Keiter, R.B. 1985. On protecting the national parks from the external threats dilemma. Land

and Water Law Review 20, 355–420.National Parks Conservation Association. 2002. State of the Parks, A Resource Assessment:

Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park. On-line at www.npca.org/stateoftheparks/glacier/.

Newburn, D., S. Reed, P. Berck, and A. Merenlender. 2005. Economics and land-use changein prioritizing land conservation. Conservation Biology 19, 1411–1420.

Newburn, D., P. Berck, and A. Merenlender. 2006. Habitat and open space at risk of land-use conversion: Targeting strategies for land conservation. American Journal of Agricul-tural Economics 88, 28–42.

Ojima, D.S., K.A. Galvin, and B.L. Turner. 1994. The global impact of land-use change.BioScience 44, 300–304.

Pimm, S.L., and P. Raven. 2000. Biodiversity: Extinction by numbers. Nature 403, 843–845.

Prato, T. 1998. Non-market valuation of natural and environmental resources. In NaturalResource and Environmental Economics. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

———. 2003a. Multiple attribute evaluation of ecosystem management for the MissouriRiver. Ecological Economics 45, 297–309.

———. 2003b. Alleviating multiple threats to protected areas with adaptive ecosystem man-agement: The case of Waterton–Glacier International Peace Park. The George WrightForum 20:4, 41–52.

———. 2004. Multiple attribute evaluation for national parks and protected areas. TheGeorge Wright Forum 21:4, 62–75.

———. 2005. Accounting for uncertainty in making species protection decisions.Conservation Biology 19, 806–814.

Rasker, R., B. Alexander, J. van den Noort, and R. Carter. 2004. Prosperity in the 21stCentury West: The Role of Protected Public Lands. Bozeman, Mont.: Sonoran Institute.

Solecki, W.D. 2001. The role of global-to-local linkages in land use/land cover changes inSouth Florida. Ecological Economics 37, 339–356.

The Nature Conservancy. 2003. Conservation Easements: Conserving Land, Water and aWay of Life. On-line at http://nature.org/aboutus/howwework/conservationmethods/privatelands/conservationeasements/files/consrvtn_easemnt_sngle72.pdf.

Turner, B.L., and W.B. Meyer. 1994. Global land-use and land-cover change: an overview.In Changes in Land Use and Land Cover: A Global Perspective. W.B. Meyer and B.L.Turner, eds. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 3–10.

Vitousek, P.M., H.A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J.M. Melillo. 1997. Human domination of


the Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277, 494-–499.Williams, F. 2001. Between towns and wilderness: protecting the buffer zones. In Return of

the Wild: The Future of Our Natural Lands. T. Kerasote, ed. Washington, D.C.: IslandPress, 73–86.

Tony Prato, Center for Agricultural, Resource and Environmental Systems (CARES), 212Mumford Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211; [email protected]


Studies examining the island syn-drome have primarily focused on smallmammals. Many small mammals are habitatgeneralists, with large demographic andecological plasticity (Adler 1996). Thisallows relatively rapid changes to their ecol-ogy once introduced onto an island. Inaddition, other island taxa may be indirect-ly affected by island-related changes insmall-mammal demography. For example, ifecological release on islands results in high-er densities of small mammals relative to themainland, island populations of ground-nesting songbirds may face unusually highnest depredation rates. Nest depredationaccounts for approximately 80% of all nest

failures for open-cup nesting passerines andhas the potential to shape patterns of habi-tat selection, coexistence, and the evolutionof life-history traits of birds (Martin 1988,1993).

Ground and shrub-nesting birds intemperate deciduous forests are exposed toa variety of bird and mammalian predators(Schmidt et al. 2001), with Peromyscus spp.being documented as common nest preda-tors (e.g., Guillory 1987; Maxson andOring 1978). For example, nest failure ofdark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis L.) inVirginia was positively correlated with deermouse density, suggesting that mice influ-ence the reproductive success of this


Island-specific Ecological Release of Small Mammalsin Lake Michigan and Potential Consequences for Ground-nesting Birds: The Importance ofAmerican Beech (Fagus grandifolia) in StructuringSmall-mammal Communities

J.N. Rosemier and D.J. Flaspohler

IntroductionISLAND AREA HAS THE POTENTIAL TO ALTER COMMUNITY AND ECOSYSTEM PROCESSES relativeto the mainland (Wardle et al. 1997). Such differences include species composition(MacArthur and Wilson 1967), demographics (Adler and Levins 1994), and niche shifts(Crowell 1983). A suite of characteristics associated with island populations of rodents hasbeen reported and collectively given the name “island syndrome” (Adler and Levins 1994).Island-related changes in density, morphology, and behavior are thought to result from thesmaller area relative to the mainland, and the isolation of the island from the mainland.Observed changes in the structure of island populations of small mammals are thought toresult from ecological release from interspecific competitors and predators found on themainland but not on the islands (Adler and Levins 1994). Additionally, potential for disper-sal is often limited on islands.

species (Flaspohler et al. 2000; Ketterson etal. 1996). This suggests that ground- andshrub-nesting birds breeding on islandsmay face unusually high nest depredationrates compared with the mainland wheredensities of predators are often higher.

Artificial nests are commonly used tocompare relative rates of nest depredationamong different habitats (Major and Kendal1996). Although artificial nests are of limit-ed use when estimating absolute rates ofdepredation on natural nests (e.g., Wilsonet al. 1998), they have proven to be useful inestimating relative rates of depredation(Villard and Pärt 2004). By considering rel-ative rates, the effect of over- or underesti-mation of absolute rates stemming from theuse of artificial nests may be minimized.Additionally, the ability to manipulate theabundances and distribution of artificialnests allows a high degree of control, espe-cially when natural nests are rare or difficultto find (Wilson et al. 1998).

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lake-shore is located in the northwestern part ofthe lower peninsula of Michigan. It consistsof North Manitou Island and South Mani-tou Island, with areas of approximately 33sq km and 20 sq km, respectively, andapproximately 290 sq km on the mainland.The forests at the national lakeshore areclassified as northern hardwoods, althoughthe species composition varies among theislands and the mainland. Vegetation analy-sis on the two islands shows distinctive dif-ferences in species composition, especiallyin trees over 10 cm diameter at breastheight. The forests on South Manitou arecomposed of 10% American beech and47% sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.),while North Manitou is 33% Americanbeech and 46% sugar maple (P.M. Hurley,unpublished data). Understory vegetation

structure also differs, with South Manitouhaving a higher level of herbaceous coverand North Manitou having a higher level ofseedling and sapling cover.

We tested the null hypotheses that (1)there are no differences in the abundance ofsmall mammals between the two Manitouislands in northern Lake Michigan and themainland; and that (2) there are no differ-ences in rates of artificial nest depredationon the islands compared with the mainland.

MethodsZebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata Vieil-

lot) eggs were used to simulate veery (Cath-arus fuscescens Stephens) eggs. The veerywas selected because it is a commonground-nesting bird on the islands andmainland. Zebra finch eggs (~16.9x12.8mm) are smaller than veery eggs(~22.9x16.9 mm; Moskoff 1995), but read-ily obtainable commercial eggs were moresimilar to veery eggs than other species thathave commonly been used in artificial neststudies (e.g., Japanese quail, Coturnixjaponica Temminck & Schlegel). Real eggswere used in addition to the artificial eggs tomimic olfactory cues that may be associatedwith natural nests. Real eggs were leftunwashed and kept in a refrigerator untilthey were placed in the artificial nests.Artificial nests constructed of dried grasswere obtained from a craft distributor(Nicole Quality Value, Mount Laurel, N.J.).These nests were approximately 10 cm indiameter, 5 cm deep, and were similar insize to natural veery nests. Artificial eggswere made using gray Plasticine (Hobby-craft Canada, Concord, Ontario), whichwas rolled by hand into a shape and dimen-sion similar to veery eggs. A small paperclip was then inserted into each egg, and theeggs were wired into the artificial nests to


minimize their loss. Each nest consisted ofone artificial and one zebra finch egg. Latexgloves were worn at all times when the eggsand nests were being handled to minimizehuman scent contamination.

Four artificial nest grids each werelocated within the national lakeshore inbeech–maple forests on the mainland,South Manitou, and North Manitou. Gridswere a minimum of 1 km apart and werechosen using a digital vegetation cover typemap such that all grids were located in sim-ilar forests. Each 200x200-m grid consistedof five parallel transects onto which nestswere placed at 50-m intervals for a total of25 nests per grid. The 50-m spacing wasintended to limit the probability of a singlepredator depredating more than one nest.Artificial nest points were located at eachinterval using two random numbers: thefirst determined the distance from the tran-sect (1–10 m in 1-m increments), and thesecond determined the direction from thetransect (90o right or left of the transect).Artificial nests were placed in the leaf litterto simulate natural nests. No additionalattempt was made to conceal the nests so asto avoid any bias associated with differencesin concealment. Flagging was used to assistin relocation of the nests, but it was at least25 m from any nest to minimize visual cuesthat predators may have associated with thenests. Simple sketches were also made foreach nest to assist in relocation.

The veery breeding season lasts fromapproximately 1 June through 15 July.Artificial nest trials were performed on themainland between 29 May and 10 June, onSouth Manitou between 31 May and 12June, and on North Manitou between 15June and 27 June. Logistical constraintsprecluded performing the artificial neststudy at the same time at all three locations.

Nests were monitored after 6 days and againafter 12 days, approximating the incubationperiod for the veery. A higher frequency ofnest monitoring was avoided to reducepredator attraction to nests resulting fromthe presence of humans.

Successful nests were those that didnot experience a depredation event after the12-day exposure period. Artificial nestswere considered depredated if thePlasticine egg had marks on it or if the zebrafinch egg was destroyed or missing. Depre-dated nests were removed to avoid potentialbias from predators learning the location ofand returning to previously depredatednests. Plasticine eggs from depredated nestswere collected and teeth marks were com-pared with teeth from a collection of smallmammal skulls to determine the speciesresponsible for the depredation event. Allnests were removed after the 12-day moni-toring period.

Small-mammal trapping was carriedout between 20–24 June on the mainland,25–29 June on South Manitou, and 1–4July on North Manitou. One trapping gridwas centered in each artificial nest plot.Small-mammal trapping occurred after theartificial nest study had been completedbetween 29 May and 27 June. Each trap-ping grid was 90x90 m, with traps spaced at15-m intervals to create a 7x7 grid of traps.One 9x9x23-cm Sherman live trap (H.B.Sherman Traps, Tallahassee, Fla.) wasplaced at each trap station for a total of 49Sherman traps per grid. These traps werecovered with an insulating/waterproofingmaterial and contained a single piece of cot-ton (i.e., nesting material) to minimize ani-mal mortality in the traps. Additionally, nineHavahart traps (152 cm x 152 cm x 406mm) were placed evenly on each grid tosample larger mammals. Flagging was


placed near each trap to aid relocation.Traps were baited with a mixture of peanutbutter and rolled oats. Baited traps wereused because the goal of this study was toestablish an index of small-mammal abun-dance for each site rather than absolute den-sity.

All animals were handled according tothe American Society of Mammalogistsguidelines (Animal Care and Use Commit-tee 1998). Traps were checked daily in theearly morning, and all captured animalswere identified to the species level,weighed, and assigned to an age class. Ageclass was determined by pelage color formice (Peromyscus spp.; Whitaker 1997) andweight for eastern chipmunks (Tamiasstriatus), and animals were designated asjuvenile, sub-adult, or adult. Captured ani-mals were also ear tagged with serially num-bered Size 1 Monel ear tags (National Bandand Tag Company, Newport, Ky.) for futureidentification. We compared the age classesof Peromyscus spp. and eastern chipmunkscaptured at each location to determinewhether the age structure of small-mammalpopulations differed over the two-weekperiod.

Comparisons of artificial nest depreda-tion rates were made among the islands andthe mainland using CAPTURE (Otis et al.1978). Population estimates were calculat-ed for both mice and eastern chipmunksusing NOREMARK (White 1996). Pero-myscus spp. were pooled due to difficulty indistinguishing the deer mouse (Peromyscusmaniculatus Wagner) from the white-foot-ed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus Rafinesque)in the field and the ecological similarity ofthe two species (Schnurr et al. 2002).Lincoln-Peterson population estimates ofsmall mammals on the islands and the main-land were compared using multiple analysis

of variance (MANOVA) (SAS Institute Inc.1989). Age structure of Peromyscus spp. wascompared among the three locations usinghierarchical log-linear analysis in SPSS(SPSS Inc. 1998). Planned orthogonal con-trasts (mainland vs. South Manitou andNorth Manitou; North Manitou vs. SouthManitou) were then made using a G-test.Age-class comparisons of chipmunksbetween North and South Manitou weremade using a Student’s t-test (SAS InstituteInc. 1989). For all analyses, an alpha of<0.10 was considered statistically signifi-cant.

ResultsAfter 6 days, the mean number of nests

depredated out of 25 on North Manitouwas significantly higher than on eitherSouth Manitou or the mainland(FCALC=10.87, p=0.004, df=11; Figure 1).Since nearly all of the nests on North Mani-tou were depredated after six days, analysisof nest success on this island was limited tothe 6-day depredation rate. After 12 days,nearly all nests on the mainland and SouthManitou were depredated, and depredationrates were not statistically significantly dif-ferent between these two locations (tstat=0.37, p=0.72, df=6; Figure 1).

Examination of depredated Plasticineeggs indicated that Peromyscus spp. wereresponsible for most of the nest depreda-tion on both islands and the mainland(Table 1). Eastern chipmunks, gray squir-rels (Sciurus carolinensis Gmelin), andnorthern flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabri-nus Show) accounted for a small proportionof artificial nest depredation events on bothislands, but these species were not respon-sible for any known nest depredation eventson the mainland and were never capturedthere. The mainland did have higher rates


of raccoon (Procyon lotor L.) depredation,and all three locations had nests that wereremoved completely and assigned to an“unknown” category. Other predators suchas white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianusBoddaert) and birds played relatively minorroles as artificial nest predators.

Indices of population sizes ofPeromyscus spp. among the mainland,South Manitou, and North Manitou werenot significantly different (FCALC=0.83,p=0.25, df=11; Figure 2). Variation in cap-ture success within each location was highand may have reduced the chances ofdetecting differences in population sizesamong the three locations. Eastern chip-munk population estimates among themainland, South Manitou, and NorthManitou (0, 5.9 ± 3.1, and 11.3 ± 3.1,respectively) were significantly different(FCALC=4.94, p=0.03, df=11; Figure 3). Nochipmunks were captured on the mainland

during the trapping period, despite occa-sional sightings on the mainland.

Hierarchical log-linear analysis ofPeromyscus spp. captured at each locationrevealed that age classes were more evenlydistributed on the mainland than either ofthe two islands, where most of the individu-als captured were adults (p=0.004).Planned contrasts of this data suggest thatthe mainland contained proportionatelymore non-adult mice than either of theislands (GCALC=6.71; p<0.01) and that thetwo islands did not differ from one another(GCALC=0.09; p>0.05). However, no statisti-cally significant differences were seen in theage distribution as inferred from mean bodyweights of eastern chipmunks on SouthManitou versus North Manitou.

Other captured species includedsouthern red-backed voles (Clethrionomysgapperi Vigors), gray squirrels, northernflying squirrels, and northern short-tailed


Figure 1. Mean number of artificial nests depredatedafter 6 and 12 days on the mainland, North ManitouIsland, and South Manitou Island at Sleeping Bear DunesNational Lakeshore, Michigan. Error bars represent onestandard error. Each location consisted of four independ-ent grids, each consisting of 25 artificial nests. On Days 6and 12, bars with the same letter are not significantly dif-ferent (p>0.05). On North Manitou Island, nearly all nestwere depredated after 6 days. Therefore, no Day 12analysis was available for this island.

Table 1. Percentage of artificial nests depredated by different predators on the mainland, North Manitou Island, and SouthManitou Island at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Michigan. Each of these three locations consisted of four independentgrids, each consisting of 25 artificial nests.

shrews (Blarina brevicauda Say), but thesespecies were not caught in sufficient num-bers to estimate population sizes. In addi-tion, these species were never implicated asnest predators.

DiscussionMany authors have questioned the use

of artificial nests to estimate rates of nestdepredation of natural bird nests. Factorssuch as human scent contamination (Don-alty and Henke 2001); lack of adult scentand incubating activity; presence of eggsbut not nestlings; differences in camouflage;lack of adult defense; differences in the size,color, or odor of eggs (Wilson et al. 1998);attraction of different suites of predators;differences in the location of nests (Zanette2002); and the ability of some predators tolearn to search for artificial nests arrangedin a regular pattern (e.g., a grid; Willebrandand Marcstrom 1988) may result in dis-

crepancies between artificial and naturalnest depredation. However, there appearsto be a growing consensus that artificialnests are valuable for measuring nest depre-dation at local scales (Roper 1992) anddetecting trends in relative reproductivesuccess in birds (Wilson et al. 1998; Villardand Pärt 2004).

Our study suggests that some interest-ing community processes are occurring atSleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.Small-mammal communities differ amongthe Manitou islands and the mainland.However, the differences that we identifiedwere only partly consistent with predictionsof ecological release of small mammals onboth islands. On North Manitou, easternchipmunk population densities were higherthan on either South Manitou or the main-land. North Manitou Island also had signif-icantly higher depredation rates on artificialnests after six days than either South Mani-


Figure 2. Mean estimated population sizes of mice(Peromyscus spp.) on the mainland, North ManitouIsland, and South Manitou Island at Sleeping Bear DunesNational Lakeshore, Michigan. Each of these three loca-tions consisted of four independent grids, each with a 7x7grid of small-mammal trap stations. Error bars representone standard error. At each location, bars with the sameletter are not significantly different (p>0.05).

Figure 3. Mean estimated population sizes of easternchipmunks (Tamias striatus) on the mainland, NorthManitou Island, and South Manitou Island at SleepingBear Dunes National Lakeshore, Michigan. Each of thesethree locations consisted of four independent grids, eachwith a 7x7 grid of small-mammal trap stations. Error barsrepresent one standard error. At each location, bars withthe same letter are not significantly different (p>0.05).

tou or the mainland. In terms of small-mam-mal populations and artificial nest depreda-tion rates, South Manitou resembled themainland more than it did North Manitou.We had predicted similar patterns betweenthe islands and differences between theislands and the mainland. If ecologicalrelease of small mammals occurred on bothislands, it was either manifesting itself in dif-ferent ways or was obscured by other phe-nomena that are simultaneously acting onsmall mammals on the islands. For example,island-specific population fluctuations mayhave obscured the effects of the island syn-drome. In some cases, it has been suggestedthat intraspecific competition resultingfrom elevated population densities mayincrease and thereby overcome any effectsresulting from lack of interspecific competi-tion on islands (Crowell 1983). However,on the Manitou islands, population densi-ties of the major artificial nest predator(Peromyscus spp.) did not appear to be ele-vated, and although population densities ofeastern chipmunks on North Manitou werehigher than on the mainland, they did notappear to be the dominant nest predator.

Historically, South Manitou has lackeda population of white-tailed deer. In con-trast, North Manitou went through severaldecades (1940s–1980s) of extremely highdeer densities while it was a private gamereserve with supplemental winter food pro-vided (Case and McCullough 1987). Thesepopulations have persisted, and deer arestill present on North Manitou. Mainlanddeer densities have historically been inter-mediate between the densities on the twoislands. American beech is approximatelythree times more abundant on NorthManitou than on South Manitou (D. Flas-pohler, unpublished data). We hypothesizethat the preference of deer for sugar maple

over American beech (Case and McCul-lough 1987) has favored beech recruitmenton North Manitou relative to South Mani-tou and led to the greater dominance ofbeech on North Manitou compared withSouth Manitou or the nearby mainland.This beech dominance and associatedgreater abundance of beech seed may besupporting the higher relative densities ofchipmunks that were observed on NorthManitou, potentially increasing competitionwith mice for food resources. This, in turnmay explain the higher level of artificial nestdepredation by mice on North Manitou rel-ative to the mainland and South Manitou.This study suggests a potentially importantrole of American beech in structuring forestcommunities, although other possiblemechanisms behind these observations mayexist. Clearly, further work would be valu-able in beginning to uncover the mecha-nisms observed at the national lakeshore.

In addition to the competitive relation-ships discussed above, it is possible thatmammals on the islands have a later repro-ductive season than those on the mainlandbecause of the close proximity to LakeMichigan. If this is accurate, populationestimates of Peromyscus spp. on the main-land may have been somewhat inflated rela-tive to those on the islands, because thebreeding season had apparently alreadystarted on the mainland (as evidenced bythe relatively even distribution of age class-es on the mainland). Relatively few juvenileand sub-adults were captured on theislands, and it is likely that they had notexperienced the same reproductive outputwhen they were sampled. However, bothislands appeared to be fairly similar in thedistribution of age classes, both for Pero-myscus spp. and for eastern chipmunks.Later sampling of mammals on the islands


may have provided a more detailed repre-sentation of relative population sizes, partic-ularly between the mainland and theislands.

AcknowledgmentsWe thank Thomas D. Drummer and

John A. Vucetich for assistance with dataanalysis and comments on this manuscript,Peter M. Hurley for contributing vegetation

data for South Manitou and NorthManitou, and Brian L. Beachy, C. AudraBassett, Joshua M. Shields, Tina Schoos,and Brian R. Lomerson for assistance withdata collection and logistical support.Funding and essential logistical support forthis work was provided by Steve Yanchoand the National Park Service throughNRPP Project 247.


ReferencesAdler, G.H. 1996. The island syndrome in isolated populations of a tropical forest rodent.

Oecologia 108, 694–700.Adler, G.H., and R. Levins. 1994. The island syndrome in rodent populations. The Quar-

terly Review of Biology 69, 473–490.Animal Care and Use Committee. 1998. Guidelines for the capture, handling, and care of

mammals as approved by the American Society of Mammalogists. Journal of Mam-malogy 79, 1416–1431.

Chase. D.J., and D.R. McCullough. 1987. The white-tailed deer of North Manitou Island.Hilgardia 55 (57 pp.).

Crowell, K.L. 1983. Islands-insight or artifact?: Population dynamics and habitat utilizationin insular rodents. Oikos 41, 442–454.

Donalty, S.M., and S.E. Henke. 2001. Can researchers conceal their scent from predators inartificial nest studies? Wildlife Society Bulletin 29, 814–820.

Flaspohler, D.J., S.A. Temple, and R.N. Rosenfield. 2000. The relationship between nestsuccess and concealment in two ground-nesting passerines. The Journal of FieldOrnithology 71, 736–747.

Guillory, H.D. 1987. Cavity competition and suspected predation on prothonotary warblersby Peromyscus spp. The Journal of Field Ornithology 58, 425–427.

Ketterson, E.D., V. Nolan, Jr., M.J. Cawthorn, P.J. Parker, and C. Ziegenfus. 1996.Phenotypic engineering: using hormones to explore the mechanistic and functionalbases of phenotypic variation in nature. Ibis 138, 70–86.

MacArthur, R.H., and E.O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton,N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Major, R.E., and C.E. Kendal. 1996. The contribution of artificial nest experiments tounderstanding avian reproductive success: A review of methods and conclusions. Ibis138, 298–307.

Martin, T.E. 1988. Processes organizing open-nesting bird assemblages: Competition ornest predation? Evolutionary Ecology 2, 37–50.

———. 1993. Nest predation and nest sites. BioScience 43, 523–532.Maxson, S.J., and L.W. Oring. 1978. Mice as a source of egg loss among ground-nesting

birds. The Auk 95, 582–584.

Moskoff, W. 1995. Veery. In The Birds of North America: Life Histories for the 21st Century.A.F. Poole and F.B. Gill, eds. Volume 142. Philadelphia: Academy of Natural Sciences.

Otis, D.L., K.P. Burnham, G.C. White, and D.R. Anderson. 1978. Statistical inference fromcapture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife Monographs 62 (135 pp.).

Roper, J.J. 1992. Nest predation experiments with quail eggs: Too much to swallow? Oikos65, 528–530.

SAS Institute, Inc. 1989. SAS/STAT User’s Guide, Version 6 (Vol. 1). 4th ed. Cary, N.C.: SASInstitute, Inc.

Schmidt, K.A., J.R. Goheen, R. Naumann, R.S. Ostfeld, E.M. Schauber, and A. Berkowitz.2001. Experimental removal of strong and weak predators: mice and chipmunks prey-ing on songbird nests. Ecology 82, 2927–2936.

Schnurr, J.L., R.S. Ostfeld, and C.D. Canham. 2002. Direct and indirect effects of mastingon rodent populations and tree seed survival. Oikos 96, 402–410.

SPSS, Inc. 1998. SPSS Base 8.0 for Windows User’s Guide. Chicago: SPSS, Inc.Villard, M., and T. Pärt. 2004. Don’t put all your eggs in real nests: A sequel to Faaborg. Con-

servation Biology 18, 371–372.Wardle, D.A., O. Zackrisson, G. Hornberg, and C. Gallet. 1997. The influence of island area

on ecosystem properties. Science 277, 1296–1299.Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1997. National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals.

New York: Chanticleer Press.White, G. C. 1996. NOREMARK: Population estimation from mark-resighting surveys.

Wildlife Society Bulletin 24, 50–52.Willebrand, T., and V. Marcstrom. 1988. On the danger of using dummy nests to study pre-

dation. The Auk 105, 378-388.Wilson, G.R., M.C. Brittingham, and L.J. Goodrich. 1998. How well do artificial nests esti-

mate success of real nests? Condor 100, 357–364.Zanette, L. 2002. What do artificial nests tell us about nest predation? Biological Conserva-

tion 103, 323–329.

J.N. Rosemier, School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, Michigan Techno-logical University,1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, Michigan 49931; [email protected]

D.J. Flaspohler, School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, Michigan Techno-logical University,1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, Michigan 49931; [email protected]


Through the Eyes of a Child: The Many Aspects of Environmental Justice

Gillian Bowser

I REMEMBER THE MOOSE. The moose was standing in the dappled sun of a late Wyomingafternoon and it stood squarely in the middle of a path between my five-year-old feet and apatch of huckleberries. As a five-year-old from Brooklyn New York, the moose representedsuch otherness that the tableau—moose, berries, shafts of sun, and my dusty Pro-Kedssneakers—has remained crystal clear for decades. In my mind, that moose represented every-thing different from my city home and everything pivotal to the career I ended up choosing.


Environmental Justice ,

What is environmental justice? Whenasked this question, most people refer tolow-income neighborhoods where healthimpacts are the primary concern and theenvironment is a surrounding that is evil,with toxins moving up the food chain andconcentrating in human populations.However, here, in this special edition of TheGeorge Wright Forum, we take a step backand define environmental justice throughthe eyes of a child. Environmental justice isthe access to curiosity in discovering thesweetness of huckleberries, the challenge ofhiking a dusty trail in battered sneakers, andthe indomitable barrier of a moose in themiddle of a path. From curiosity to expo-sure to stereotypes, we need to explore thebarriers that make access to environmentalresources, such as huckleberries or a

moose, more difficult for some ethnicgroups to achieve than others.

What is the concern for environmentaljustice? The American public is rapidlychanging and the environmental challengesfacing our nation’s protected areas areincreasing. Early on, the history of the envi-ronmental movement moved in a differentdirection from the common experience ofethnic groups such as African Americans orNative Americans. The National Park Ser-vice Act of 1916 was passed 25 years afterthe battle at Wounded Knee; ten years afterthe enactment of Jim Crow laws in theSouth, and within 25 years of the lyricsmade famous later on by Billie Holiday:“these trees, what strange fruit they bear….”The Wilderness Act of 1964 was within ayear of the Civil Rights Act of 1963. Yet it

wasn’t until the end of the tumultuous six-ties that the idea of parks and access toresources for even the urban poor was artic-ulated—not by the grand names, like Leo-pold or Muir, often associated with parksand preservations, but by the release of TheRace for Open Space in 1960 by theRegional Plan Association in New YorkCity. The tie between urban developmentand decay and the coining of the term“open space” was the start of a movementrecognizing that urban dwellers—oftenpoor and minorities—needed recreationalopportunities near by to cure urban ills.People connect to parks through reflection,recreation, and even gardening in ways thatwere beneficial to the urban lifestyle. The1978 addition of recreation areas to themanagement units of the National Park Ser-vice were intended specifically to addressthe goal (as articulated in 1971 by the Advi-

sory Board on National Parks, HistoricSites, Buildings and Monuments) of “pro-viding outlets for urban frustration and con-structive activities for youthful energies ...we have an obligation to give these peoplethe chance to share in a bit of open spaceand fresh air.” Yet to this day, most minori-ties associate parks with fear, crime, a feel-ing of being unwelcome, and an uncomfort-able history.

In the following collection of papers,the authors explore two related questions:What is environmental justice, and howdoes it relate to natural resources? And:Why is the connection to open spaceimportant to all people? This question wasfirst posed in the scholarly work Justice andNatural Resources (Mutz, Bryner, andKenney 2002) where environmental justicewas explored in the context of naturalresources themselves rather than environ-



mental toxins. The idea of fairness of accessand other social inequalities was noted notonly in terms of where parks are but howthey are maintained and managed. Clearly,the equitable access to natural resources, oreven the right to make traditional use ofthose resources (as was granted in the caseof Alaskan Natives) did not exist in all com-munities, so the question of justice, as clear-ly outlined by a 1994 executive order byPresident Clinton, was that the environ-ment was to be equally accessible for allAmericans. The papers presented hereexamine that access, starting with a broadpresentation of typical stereotypes to per-sonal stories and interviews.

The first broad step is an understand-ing to how the demography of the UnitedStates is rapidly changing around ourparks. Hispanic populations are explodingin the Southeast while African Americans

are appearing in states as remote as Mon-tana (Peterman, this volume). As these pop-ulations change around the parks, the stake-holders involved with the parks and impact-ed by management actions, has alsochanged. In a recent study of Northeastparks in the Northeast, my colleagues and Ifound that many parks were surrounded bycommunities whose Hispanic populationshad increased by more than 200%. In con-trast, parks in the western states, such asPadre Island National Seashore in Texas,showed less change in Hispanic popula-tion, but a dramatic shift in the populationage as retirees moved into the area. As thesedemographics shift, the stakeholders alsoshift and the relevancy of parks to thoselocal populations is declining (Schuett andBowser, this volume).

The second step in exploring environ-mental justice is the issue of curiosity and



acceptance. Three papers here emphasizethe issues of youth and their ability toexplore natural resources and be comfort-able. Henry F. Howe reviews the culturalroots of ecology and current ecological par-adigms to explore their role in introducingyouth to ecological curiosity. Then, CorlissWilson Outley explores her research onchildren within inner cities and discussestheir views of environmental quality andhow their perceptions affect the use of openspaces. These articles mirror recent newsreleases in the media regarding the declinein park visitation, and also touch upon newtechnologies, like podcasting and cellphone stations, that fundamentally changehow visitors experience parks.

The goal of this collection of papers isto encourage reflection. Environmental jus-tice is not the simple siting of toxic sourcesnear one neighborhood or another. Envi-ronmental justice is also about the openaccess—perceived or hidden—of all peopleto America’s natural resources. If we con-nect only one culture to that environmentalhistory, we risk the alienation of a rapidlygrowing majority. It is instructive to reflectthat the youth interviewed by Outley will bethe generation managing the parks in theyear 2016—the hundredth anniversary ofthe National Park Service. It is sobering to

think that the parks whose nearby commu-nities have the fastest-growing Hispanicpopulations don’t have basic regulatorysigns in Spanish, and yet those are thestakeholders who will be voting for thatpark’s budget in 2016. Imagine, as we headtowards the centennial celebrations of thefounding of the National Park Service, thatthe management and visitors to parks mustlook very different from the current employ-ees and visitors for parks and protectedareas to survive. A failure to recognize thecomplexity of perceptions this new groupof citizens will have towards parks, and thebarriers created by those perceptions, canbe as fatal to the parks themselves as theperceived overcrowding of the 1990s andthe current challenges of global climatechange.

But lastly, remember the moose. As ayoung African American from an urban jun-gle, that moose was a barrier between meand the desired huckleberries of my future.By 2016, all inner-city youth should haveaccess to such huckleberries, so that they intheir turn can become stewards, and lookforward to sharing the day when they taketheir five-year-olds’ hand and lead themcarefully down the dusty trail, past themoose, to the treats beyond.



ReferenceMutz, Kathryn, Gary C. Bryner, and Douglas S. Kenney, eds. 2002. Justice and Natural Re-

sources: Concepts, Strategies, and Applications. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Gillian Bowser, Department of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&MUniversity, 2261 TAMU, 210 Francis Hall, College Station, Texas 77843-2261;[email protected]

When we first saw the article and theletters in 1995, my husband Frank and Ihad just returned from a life-altering,12,000-mile, 40-state trip around the coun-try, visiting national parks from coast tocoast. Awestruck by the unworldly beautyof Acadia, the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone,Yosemite, Olympic, Zion, and the PetrifiedForest, among other national parks, we hadbeen equally astounded to find ourselvesthe only Americans of color among visitors.(It wasn’t until we reached Olympic that Isaw another black woman.)

Returning home to Florida, we could-n’t stop talking about the national park sys-tem. This, surely, was among the greatestgifts our country could give to its citizens—our most compelling landscapes preservedfor our enjoyment and inspiration, alongwith the relics of Native cultures and thesalutary places in our country’s history.

Who needed to go anywhere else on vaca-tion when there was so much in our owncountry to discover?

Our friends and relatives, that’s who.Many of them had been uneasy when wetold them our plans to hike and camp innational parks, amazed that we would makeourselves so vulnerable. Their concern wasless about our being attacked by wild ani-mals and more about being accosted byhostile white men. Frank and I hadresponded that we did not feel a need forprotection since, as Americans, we weremerely going out to see our country. Wasn’tthat every American’s right?

While we were busy telling them howcompletely pleasurable our trip was, the let-ters in National Parks magazine woke meup to the fact that the hostility our friends“perceived” was indeed real. There are peo-ple who don’t want their Great Outdoors


Fear of the Boom Box: Death Knell for Our Public Lands?

Audrey Peterman

A 1994 ARTICLE IN National Parks, the magazine of the National Parks Conservation Associ-ation, addressed the National Park Service’s need to reach out to racially diverse communi-ties and harness the power of this fast-growing demographic group. Each of the four letterspublished the following month in response to the article intensely decried the effort, andsome used vituperative language to describe what they saw as the inevitably negative effectsthat would result.

“Please do not (defile) our oases....” “We come to these places to get away from the prob-lems caused by ethnic minorities....” “Bringing more blacks and Latinos into the parkswould only lead to an increase in robbery, murder and other crimes....” “If blacks andLatinos do not enjoy this type of recreation, then do not force them....”

experience to include the diversity theyexperience in the cities, or the changing faceof America.

In the ensuing 11 years expended intrying to bridge the gap so that the nationalparks and public lands are attractive andwelcoming to African Americans and Lati-nos, we have found a tremendous drag onboth sides.

The mainstream environmental seg-ment, including public land managementagencies and nongovernmental organiza-tions, whose job it is to reach out to these“non-traditional” users with a public infor-mation campaign, instead bemoan the “lackof interest” in communities of color, whohave not been informed to begin with.Despite all evidence to the contrary, theypersist in expressing that “all Americansfondly remember our experiences in thenational parks....” Outreach programs aresmall, sporadic and are the first to be cutbecause “we just don’t have the budget.”

Simultaneously, many AfricanAmericans have been slow to embrace theoutdoors and believe “environment” hasnothing to do with them. Appeals highlight-ing the connection between naturalresource protection and our air and waterhave been met with, “White people aregoing to have air, so we’re going to have air.There are more pressing things I have toworry about.” Even the 2005 catastropheon the Gulf Coast has not been recognizedas an example of how disastrously black andpoor people can be affected by environmen-tal decisions in which we are uninvolved.

A jarring conversation this year with acolleague who is also president of a promi-nent non-profit made me realize how far westill have to go. I was explaining to him that,when we take African Americans to theparks, they are just as awestruck as anyone,and as motivated to help conserve them.We’re all human beings, and share a com-mon humanity, including a reverence for



great natural beauty,“So, does that mean everyone has to

visit the parks?” he challenged. “Does thatmean we have to have the boom boxes andeverything?!”

I gently reminded him that boom boxeshave been out of style for a while, andalmost everybody uses an iPod. Moreover,we have visited more than 100 units of thenational park system and I have never onceheard a boom box. We are also seeing manymore visitors of color. This Columbus Dayweekend in Sequoia National Park, I saw somany African Americans and Latinos, Ifinally had to stop running up to every oneof them and talking to them.

The premise of the offensive boom boxcarried by marauding urbanites is just asdamaging and offensive as the expectationthat people in the great outdoors shouldshow hostility to African Americans. Thesestereotypes are reinforced by mass mediaimages of outdoor activity, which show onlywhite people participating. Although con-servation and protection of our environ-

ment is the most fundamental issue linkingAmericans and all humans, the all-whitegroup on the cover of the 2006 “Earth DayIssue” of Vanity Fair magazine dramaticallyillustrates the schism in America’s thinkingabout the environment: Environmental pro-tection is the forte of white people. “Envi-ronmental justice,” addressing the ill effectsof pollution overwhelmingly experiencedby the poor, is the forte of people of color.Never the twain shall meet.

This false dichotomy almost complete-ly ignores the superhuman effort being putout by many African American and Latinogroups around the country, who are doingeverything they can—including investingtheir own money—to raise awareness thatpublic lands exist for our recreation andenjoyment. If public land managers andNGO leaders can get over their fear of theboom box and support these emergentleaders, we could conceivably succeed inprotecting our treasured places for the sus-tenance of future generations.



Audrey Peterman, Earthwise Productions, Inc., 450 Piedmont Avenue, Suite 1512,Atlanta, Georgia 30308; [email protected]

In considering this statement, how canNPS incorporate the values of all Ameri-cans in its various park units? How is thisstory being told? Do Americans feel theyhave a connection (physical or psychologi-cal) to the national parks, especially thoseparks in or near changing, diverse urbanpopulations? Is this an issue of environ-mental justice or marketing? What futurestrategies should be considered to make thevisitor experience more inclusive and inte-grate those individuals who have tradition-ally been under-represented (Hispanics,African Americans) as visitors in NPS parkunits? These questions raise importantissues about the continued challenge theNPS faces as it strives to preserve manysocial, cultural, and natural resource treas-ures for a changing American population.

Some researchers would argue that therecord of accomplishment for our naturalresource agencies and its relationship with

certain under-represented populations isproblematic. It is a challenge that could bediscussed through the lens of environmen-tal justice. Bryner (2002) discusses severalframeworks that have been used and agreedupon by scholars to explore the causes andcharacteristics of this type of environmentaljustice. One of these frameworks is socialjustice, which discusses a lack of access tonatural resources and their benefits. Inreferring to specific benefits, one that isimportant is to have the ability to experi-ence the social and cultural history con-tained in our national parks. As increases inminority populations change the face ofpopulation centers across the nation, parkmanagers in or near urban settings are con-fronted with new ways to figure out how toattract and meet the needs of an increasing-ly diverse and eclectic customer base.

In a review of the literature on under-represented groups and the use of U.S.


Managers’ Perceptions of Issues in Serving Racialand Ethnic Minorities in Urban Parks

Michael A. Schuett and Gillian Bowser

IntroductionOne of the key recommendations in The National Park Service in the 21st Century

(2004), a report compiled by the National Park System Advisory Board, concerns diversepopulations. According to this document, NPS should “tell America’s story as one of diversecultures interacting with and depending upon the natural world.” They suggest “that allparks should be interpreted in terms of both their natural and cultural values, including theirvalues to all Americans” (National Park System Advisory Board 2004:12). Basically, thereports stresses that parks and their management should reflect an understanding of the sig-nificance of each landscape as a culturally formed montage of habitat and human behavior,an interaction between changing natural processes and people.

national parks, Floyd (1999) points out thatnational park visitation by racial and ethnicminorities, especially African Americans, islower compared with that of whites. (Seealso Rodriguez and Roberts 2002, as well asGomez 2003, for comprehensive literaturereviews on ethnicity and recreation.) Inhighlighting several specific studies, a briefoverview of research on minority park visi-tation, Northern Arizona University’snationwide study Survey of the AmericanPublic (2003), found that 36% of whitenon-Hispanic Americans, 33% of AsianAmericans, and 27 % of Hispanic Ameri-cans reported visiting a national park in thelast two years, while visitation for AfricanAmericans was comparatively low at 13%.In examining reasons for some of these vis-itation differences by various under-repre-sented groups, Roberts (2003) studied visi-tation by Latinos and African Americans atRocky Mountain National Park. She foundthat individuals experienced several typesof constraints to park visitation, includingthe culture of NPS; perceived discrimina-tion, discomfort, and safety; and lack ofknowledge or awareness. In urban parks,Gobster (2001) investigated visitor usageand found that racial and ethnic minoritiesand whites participated in similar activities,yet minorities still feel a sense of discrimina-tion by police and park staff in the park set-ting. In a related study that assessed socialscience needs of urban park managers,Harris and Lorenzo (2000) found that man-agers expressed a need for more social sci-ence research (e.g., research on visitorexpectations), technical assistance, andtraining opportunities to serve their clien-tele in urban park settings.

Given the body of research on minori-ty park visitation and a growing need forpark managers to serve all visitors, more

information is needed from those whointeract with customers on a regular basis.Several questions need to be explored: Areracial and ethnic minorities aware of nation-al parks in or near urban areas? How canthe visitor experiences become more “rele-vant” for racial and ethnic minorities? Whatstrategies could be used to make under-rep-resented visitors feel more welcome, or atleast a part of the park experience?Therefore, the purpose of this study was toobtain preliminary feedback from NPSurban park managers and administrators onserving racial and ethnic minorities.

MethodsBetween November and December

2003, open-ended, semi-structured inter-views were conducted in three one-hour-long focus group/conference calls with thir-teen individuals. Participants includedmanagers in urban-proximate national parkunits and administrators. As used in thisstudy, the definitions of race and ethnicityfollowed those of Floyd (1999:2):

• Race: a social group distinguished orset apart, by others or by itself, primari-ly on the basis of real or perceivedphysical characteristics.

• Ethnicity: a social group set apart onthe basis of culture or nationality char-acteristics.

The following criteria were used tochoose study participants: (1) experience asa manager in an urban park unit, (2) expert-ise in program delivery or administrationwith urban park units, and (3) availabilityfor the study. Managers represented the fol-lowing NPS units: Martin Luther KingNational Historic Site, Golden GateNational Recreation Area, Santa Monica



Mountains National Recreation Area, NewYork Harbor Parks, Gateway National Rec-reation Area, Death Valley National Park,and Cuyahoga Valley National Park. Ad-ministrators represented the following NPSoffices and programs: the Rivers, Trails andConservation Assistance Program, theWASO (Washington headquarters office)Natural Resource and Education divisions,the Pacific West Regional Office, and theMidwest Regional Office. The interviewswere recorded and transcribed verbatim.Each phone call utilized the same interview-er, asking the questions in about the sameorder. The conference call questions werebased on the current literature as well asinput from managers and a team of academ-ic researchers. The following questions andareas related to serving racial and ethnicminorities were explored:

• What are the critical issues facing parkand recreation managers?

• What are current visitation levels atyour park?

• Describe design/programs/planningfeatures made to attract visitors.

• Explain the factors that prevent agen-cies from better serving visitors.

• Elaborate on strategies colleges anduniversities can use to better recruitand train potential employees.

• What are your research needs?

FindingsThirteen individuals participated in

the calls. The transcripts yielded approxi-mately 120 pages of data. These data wereanalyzed using content analysis, and all datawere aggregated. In order to secure reliabil-ity and validity, four independent re-searchers examined the transcripts for fre-quency of word usage and common words

and phrases. The following themesemerged from the analysis.

Interaction and connection withlocal communities. The issue of improvingrelationships with communities was arepeated observation that surfaced in sever-al of the respondents’ comments. The pointwas driven home many times: NPS man-agers felt that they must do a better job ofconnecting with local schools, citizens, andpartners. NPS managers agreed that theyshould obtain more input on programs,establish local advisory boards (if feasible),develop more partnerships, and constantlybe aware of whether local citizens have beenexposed to—and if they care about—whatthe park has to offer.

NPS personnel felt that they must workwith specific groups that have not previous-ly participated in planning and programdevelopment so that they can modify pro-grams and displays to appeal to diversegroups. Managers felt more support isneeded for community-based programs sothat these programs remain a high priorityfor the entire park unit, and not just the sitemanager.

Managers stressed the fact that rela-tionship-building is a long-term processand takes a great deal of time and effort.Communities are eager for results and wantto see them in a tangible format. Still othersfelt that greater interaction with communi-ties, although nothing new, needs to be rein-forced. Several comments stressed the needto obtain information from the communityon the programs and services they desire bystrengthening current relationships:

... communicate a job vacancy, to com-municate activities that are going on inthe park. And even on top of commu-nicating their activities, to finding outfrom those folks in the community



what type of activities that they mighteven be interested in to help them pri-oritize even their time.... We have tomake that connection with our popu-lation to show that ... you put a rainbowof color across the U.S.

Lastly, the interaction between thecommunities and NPS is a goal that pays offover time and reaps benefits into the future:

... and that’s some of what I have seenin other parks as well, as I’ve traveledand talked with other park managersand community leaders.... [H]avingthat liaison to that community group,has provided the opportunity toestablish a longer-term relationshipand ... gives the community an oppor-tunity to get to know other park’s staffor other resources within the park....

Commitment to a diverse workforce.NPS managers were adamant that theagency must demonstrate a stronger com-mitment to diversity recruitment and reten-tion in all aspects, i.e., from policy toresources. Seasonal and veteran NPSemployees may need new skills, requiringcultural sensitivity training, to relate betterwith diverse employees, visitors, and com-munities. Managers also felt that employees,programs and initiatives that effectivelydeliver results in enhancing employmentdiversity through local communities mustbe supported. Managers and administratorsfelt it was desirable to work toward estab-lishing a more diverse workforce, reflectingthe demographics of local communities.Park staff will need to help create policiesand an infrastructure that will makeemployment diversity and retention a staplewithin the system. Respondents also feltthat there is an additional need for moreresources to support efforts in recruitmentand retention. These programs will require

additional funding and time from parksuperintendents.

One did feel that this desired goal wasquite a challenge:

... [W]e’re not going to be truly rele-vant unless ... our own organizationreflects a diversity of the communityand people who really understandhow to connect the park to those com-munities. The second part, whichwe’re all struggling with, is that wehave so many well-intentionedemployees in the Park Service whowant to try to answer that question ofrelevancy, and in their own way, theytook a launch here and launch there ...there’s really not a strategic sort ofstrategy in place or the infrastructureto sustain it.

Another closely related problem relat-ing to a diverse workforce was commitment.Managers felt support was lacking fromwithin the agency and among the adminis-trators as well:

I think the most critical issue is com-mitment. Lack of or whatever theremight be, by staff in parks and also bythis administration. And it goes as farback as some of us on this phone con-versation, [who have] been with theNational Park Service for over 30years. It’s, you know, certain individu-als or the organization itself unwillingto dedicate the time, the staff, and theability to even use non-traditionalways of recruiting and hiring methodsto even go out and make any effort.You know, this is the sort of a thingthat we have been talking about forev-er.

Recruitment and employment pro-grams. In a closely related issue, NPS man-agers agreed that they should work cooper-atively with schools, community leaders,and businesses to create programs that will



make a diverse workforce a reality. NPSmust use the educational system as a directpipeline to accomplish this goal and startthese initiatives early in one’s educationalcareer. They realize recruitment programswith local elementary and high schoolsshould be enhanced so under-representedstudents are aware of what NPS offers.Participants agreed that high school stu-dents should have opportunities to becomepart of the agency through specific pro-grams designed to expose them to allaspects of employment within the system.Everyone felt that students should be ableto volunteer, obtain academic credit, and,with adequate training, move into positionsas NPS professionals.Partnerships should beestablished and main-tained with historicallyblack and Hispanic col-leges so that pertinentacademic programs,such as in history, recre-ation and parks, and soon, become a conduit forstudents to feed into theNPS system.

Having the ability to recruit studentsinto future positions was a theme thatemerged several times:

When minority students, middleschool students ... are exposed to apark staff member of their ethnicbackground ... [then] we have had farmore success in reaching out to thecommunity.... [a]nd [strengthening]their relationship with local universi-ties and making them aware of thePark Service in the community andthe opportunities that the ParkService offers. Many of our minoritystaff members were recruited throughthe student temporary or student

career employment programs andthey didn’t really have a good sense ofwhat they were getting into, when theystarted it, but it’s been very successfuland then they reach out to their localcommunities ... and it really serves asa role model to the student.

Even though workforce programs andpolicies currently exist in the agency, mostfelt that more could be done to get adminis-trators to “buy in” to these directives.

Identification of visitor needs/pro-gram delivery. Participants agreed thatadministrators and staff need to identifytheir audience and provide programs thatare more relevant for diverse groups.

According to onerespondent, programsshould be created thatprovide a “thresholdexperience” for first-time visitors. Theseinitial experiences arecritical to attractingrepeat visitors to thepark. A connectionwith the visitor shouldbe sought out by meet-

ing the needs of the entire communitythrough relevant programming. It is notnecessarily about more people in the parksbut about the quality of the experience andits impact on future generations:

We’re not trying to get new visitors.We’re trying to get people to develop arelationship with parks and openspaces and cultural areas, so that itbecomes a part of their life. So itbecomes something that they pass onto their children, and it is always goingto be hard.... [W]e’re trying to evalu-ate this rather quickly, and this is a gla-cial movement.



As for getting this message out, infor-mation on park programs should be target-ed for diverse audiences and placed inappropriate venues to reach these groups,e.g., Hispanic newspapers. It is advisablethat the agency coordinate its promotionalefforts and make sure the appropriate mes-sage is being delivered to the target audi-ence. Those who create effective programsand initiatives should share this informationinternally as well as externally so other staffcan benefit.

Enhancement of current researchendeavors. The final theme that emergedfocused on research. Managers sensed thatthey needed more ammunition to maketheir arguments and more information tomake decisions. They felt that moreresearch studies are needed on racial andethnic minorities and urban parks. In par-ticular, they expressed a need for more datato identify many important predictor andexplanatory variables, including reasons forvisiting parks, barriers to visitation, pro-gram and activity preferences, customer sat-isfaction, media choices, attitudes about thepark experience, etc. They also expressed adesire to see more in-depth research meth-ods (such as focus groups) being used, somore detailed information can be collectedand analyzed. One manager evidenced theneed for more research:

Our fundamental problem is we don’thave access to data outside of whatwe’re doing.... [I]f you could findsomething ... or [someone] to act as aconsistent clearinghouse of relevantdata that would give a manager ... up-to-date information.... [T]here wasjust no way for our people, or any ofus, to get that kind of study input ofnew and relevant information....

It was suggested that a national clear-inghouse be created that would containresearch results on under-representedgroups by park managers, scientists, andacademic researchers. NPS managersshould also seek out and collaborate withexperts from colleges and universities toidentify and conduct relevant research.

In summary, respondents reinforcedseveral key issues throughout the inter-views.

• NPS park personnel and administra-tors may need to learn more aboutwhat customers desire;

• Links to communities and educationalinstitutions are a critical source forfuture employees, research partner-ships, social science; and

• Additional efforts should be madebeyond what is currently being done tomeet the two previous issues.

Just how future suggestions or feed-back are integrated into the NPS visitorexperience is not for academics to decide,but one that managers and citizens mustcome to terms with as our changing nationembarks on the preservation and sustain-ability of the nation’s parks by all Ameri-cans. As Floyd aptly states: “That nearlyone-third of the U.S. population is largelyinvisible in the national parks raises ques-tions about the parks’ future relevance,meaning, and protection in an increasinglymulticultural society. The disparity innational park use also raises questionsabout equity, fairness, and the ability of theNPS to find common ground with the peo-ple it is mandated to serve” (2001:11). Onthe other hand, we must also be sensitive tothe fact that fluctuations in park visitationmay also be a result of current societal fac-



tors, including a rise in electronic entertain-ment media, which may represent a shift inrecreation choices (Pergams and Zaradic2006).

Future suggestionsThe purpose of this study was to

obtain preliminary feedback from NPSurban park managers and administratorsserving traditionally under-represented vis-itors from racial and ethnic minoritygroups. The scope of the results is limiteddue to the size and composition of the studysample. These results should not be gener-alized to all urban park units. However, thedepth of the interviews unveiled a plethoraof information that is worthy of futureexploration from a practical and theoreticalperspective.

Theoretically, much more work isneeded in exploring the relationship be-tween racial and ethnic minorities and thevisitor experience. Have minorities beengiven equal access to our nation’s nationalparks? Do social and cultural barriers needto be removed to improve this situation? Ifso, what are they and how can they beunderstood? Is the perception of a lack ofaccess to national parks an environmentaljustice issue, or could it just be poorlytrained staff ?

From a practical side, several sugges-tions were given that can assist managersand administrators in making the access tonational parks more fulfilling and more “rel-evant.” Initially, a follow-up study to explorethis research question is needed with amore representative sample, not only ofmanagers but of a host of visitors. Given thislimitation, several suggestions regardingoutreach, which summarize and expandupon the managers’ needs and concerns, areproposed in the next section of this paper.

Although time and resources are limiting,these types of ideas and suggestions arethose expressed by the managers, so admin-istrators need to seek out innovative strate-gies and incentives to encourage this type ofwork to become part of park culture.

Based on the comments of the man-agers and consistent with themes that haveemerged from the literature, these researchobjectives should be honed through indi-vidual discussions with managers and beconsistent with the organizational mandatesof NPS.

Outreach• Provide incentives for park managers

to become more engaged with localcommunities through neighborhoodassociations, church groups, civicgroups, etc., so they can better interactwith and serve racial and ethnicminorities.

• Initiate programs to recruit a morediverse student body from higher edu-cation, as well as from secondaryschools. Establish a recruitment pipe-line with high schools and historicallyblack and Hispanic colleges and com-munity colleges. Increase funding forundergraduate and graduate studentscholarships and post-doctoral fellow-ships.

• Management should seek and identifyindividuals that are willing to workwithin communities to recruit minoritystaff. Employees may need specialtraining to interact at a communitylevel. Managers must receive supportand incentives from administration todo this type of outreach.

• Managers may want to consider gettingmore involved in career fairs and spendsome time and resources to provide



field experiences for students viainternships. They should encouragethe addition of more courses to univer-sity and high school curricula that dis-cuss racial and ethnic differences.

• Managers could become knowledge-able about multi-ethnic marketing andseek out publications that may be moreeffective in getting the word out topotential users.

Research• Encourage more research, using more

in-depth data collection methods,about racial and ethnic minorities,focusing on perceptions of the naturalenvironment; preferences for specificsites, activities, and programs in urbanareas; and barriers to park visitation.

• Identify the strategies that are mosteffective in procuring input and deliv-ering information messages to andfrom minority group members forplanning and program development.

• Learn why racial and ethnic minoritiesdo not often choose recreation and

parks as a major and career. In turn,develop programs to educate recruitminority youth about NPS careers anddetermine the best practices for manag-ing a diverse work force.

• Seek out additional sources and part-nerships for funding to conduct moreresearch. Current funding levels forresearch from NPS administration andat the park level seem problematic, sonew partnerships with nonprofits,higher education, private foundations,and industry are needed to fulfill man-ager needs.

• Create a clearinghouse of informationthat contains current articles, data, andother sources on under-representedgroups and national parks. A universitycould be the setting for this type oflibrary.

AcknowledgmentsFunding for this research was providedthrough the Renewable Resources Exten-sion Act.



ReferencesBryner, G.C. 2002. Assessing claims of environmental justice: Conceptual frameworks. In

Justice and Natural Resources: Concepts, Strategies, and Applications. K. Mutz, G.C.Bryner, and D.S. Kenney, eds. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 31–56.

Floyd, M.F. 1999. Race, ethnicity, and use of the National Park System. Social ScienceResearch Review 1:2, 1–24.

———. 2001. Managing national parks in a multicultural society: Searching for commonground. The George Wright Forum 18:3, 41–51.

Gobster, P.H. 2002. Managing urban parks for a racially and ethnically diverse clientele.Leisure Sciences 24:2, 143–159.

Gomez, E. 2003. Ethnicity and Recreation: An Abridged Annotated Bibliography. Riverside,Calif.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Pacific Southwest ResearchStation.

Harris, R.A., and A.B. Lorenzo. 2000. Social science needs assessment: A survey of urbanpark managers. Park Science 20:1, 42–44.

National Park System Advisory Board. 2004. The National Park Service in the 21st Century:

Recommendations Concerning Future Directions for Science and Scientific ResourceManagement in the National Parks. Washington, D.C.: National Park System AdvisoryBoard.

Pergams, O.R.W., and P.A. Zaradic. 2006. Is love of nature in the U.S. becoming love of elec-tronic media? 16-year downtrend in national park visits explained by watching movies,playing video games, Internet use, and oil prices? Journal of EnvironmentalManagement, 80:4, 387–393.

Roberts, N.S. 2003. Ethnic minority visitors and non-visitors: An examination of constraintsregarding outdoor recreation participation in Rocky Mountain Park. Ph.D., disserta-tion, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins.

Rodriguez, D.A., and N.S. Roberts 2002. The association of race/ethnicity, gender andsocial class in outdoor recreation experiences: State of the knowledge. On-line atwww.nature.nps.gov/socialscience/docs/RodriguezRobertsRep.pdf.

Michael A. Schuett, Texas Cooperative Extension, Department of Recreation, Park andTourism Sciences, Texas A&M University, TAMU 2261, College Station, TX 77843-2261; [email protected]

Gillian Bowser, Department of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&MUniversity, 2261 TAMU, 210 Francis Hall, College Station, Texas 77843-2261;[email protected]



The Children’s Defense Fund statesthat over 21% of children in America live inpoverty. Poor families and families of colorare more likely to live in communities thatare situated close to high-polluting indus-tries, hazard waste facilities, and incinera-tors. In addition, these families are morelikely to live in substandard housing, expe-rience poor indoor and outdoor air quality,and be exposed to deteriorating lead paintand contaminated soil within individualhomes and communities. Currently, 16% ofwhite non-Hispanic children live in poverty,compared with 41.5% of blacks and 41% ofHispanic children, and as a result thesechildren live in communities that bear a dis-proportionate share of the environmentalproblems that occur in the United States.

The disparity in environmental con-tamination between majority and minorityU.S. citizens is further observed in inner-city children’s use of space. Space hasbecome a major factor in children’s dailylives. Pollution, crime, social ills such as

drug deals and gang activity, and lack ofplay and green spaces are just a few of theproblems experienced in inner-city envi-ronments.

All of these issues combined have ledmany scholars to question: Are today’surban conditions detrimental to the devel-opment of inner-city children? Have inner-city children lost access to natural areasand, subsequently, outdoor play?

Recognizing that childhood is a socialconstruction, the purposes of this article areseveral: (1) to summarize the environmentaljustice movement, (2) to analyze the devel-opmental contexts that many children livingin inner-city communities confront, and (3)to review the consequences of environmen-tal injustices and their relationship to thefuture of park management.

Environmental justice movementThe environmental justice movement

in the United States began during the sum-mer of 1978 (Bullard 1990). The predomi-


The Challenge of Environmental Justice for Children:The Impact of Cumulative Disadvantageous Risks

Corliss Wilson Outley

IntroductionDO YOU REMEMBER THE TIMES WHEN YOUR MOTHER WOULD YELL, “GO OUTSIDE AND PLAY?”Or when you, your family, or friends would get to play outside until the street lamps cameon? Or how about the time you watched the lizard as it climbed past your bedroom window?Well, in the past decade many young people in the United States have lost the childhoodopportunity to experience nature. Consequently, children today are living in a completelydifferent world in comparison with the world in which their parents and grandparents grewup. This is especially true for poor children of color living in urban settings.

nantly African American community inWarren County, North Carolina, protestedthe selection of a local landfill as the site todump soil contaminated with PCBs (poly-chlorinated biphenyls). Many WarrenCounty residents believed that the site waschosen due to perceived lack of oppositionby the poor, minority residents living nearthe site. Warren County took the state tocourt twice but the federal courts rejectedthe suits, and hauling of the tainted soil tothe landfill began in September 1982.

This gave rise to a joining of civil rightsand environmental rights communities asprotestors attempted to physically block thepath of over 6,000 truckloads of PCB-lacedsoil. By the end of the six weeks of protest-ing, over 500 protestors were arrested, mak-ing it the first time anyone was jailed in theUnited States for participating in a landfillsiting protest. Consequently, the issue ofenvironmental justice was raised to thenational level for the first time in the U.S.

Since this event there have been signif-icant strides in the environmental justicemovement, which was given impetus by twoearly empirical studies:

• In 1983, the U.S. General AccountingOffice (1983) issued the report Sitingof Hazardous Waste Landfills and theirCorrelation with Racial and EconomicStatus of Surrounding Communities.The report examined racial and eco-nomic characteristics of communitieslocated near four hazardous landfills inthe southeastern United States. Thereport concluded that blacks were dis-proportionately represented in three ofthe four communities with hazardouswaste landfills, and all four communi-ties had at least 25% of the residentsliving below the poverty line.

• In response to the siting of the WarrenCounty PCB dump, the UnitedChurch of Christ’s Commission forRacial Justice issued a 1987 reportentitled Toxic Waste and Race in theUnited States: A National Report on theRacial and Socioeconomic Character-istics of Communities SurroundingHazardous Waste Sites. The reportfound that the most significant factorfor the siting of hazardous waste facili-ties was race, and a subsequent speechby Benjamin Chavis gave rise to theterm “environmental racism.”These studies led not only to an

increased production of empirical studiesinvestigating environmental justice claims,but also led to the rise of a grassroots move-ment and the interaction of local, state andfederal policy.

In 1991, the First National People ofColor Environmental Leadership Summitwas held in Washington, D.C. The summitbrought together local grassroots organizersand leaders from around the country dedi-cated to protecting people of color fromunwanted land uses. With the adoption of17 principles for environmental justice, thegrassroots leaders rejected mainstreamenvironmentalism and set forth an ideologi-cal framework that represents culture-spe-cific political action.

In 1992, the Environmental ProtectionAgency issued an environmental equitydocument, emphasizing that impartialityshould guide the application of laws. Thedocument advocated strengthening therelationship with minority academic institu-tions, hiring more minorities for policy-making positions, addressing the distribu-tion of risk in environmental risk of manage-ment, and creating a better database fortracking environmental equity issues.



However, the document also stated that thedata did not support the contention thatrace was systematically correlated withmore risk, except in the case of blood leadlevels.

In 1994, the Clinton Administrationissued Executive Order 12898, the “Execu-tive Order on Federal Actions to AddressEnvironmental Justice in Minority Popula-tions and Low-Income Populations.” Itdirects each federal agency to develop anenvironmental justice strategy.

Over the past twenty years a vast arrayof issues—including but not limited to leadpoisoning, hazard waste siting, landfill sit-ing, national superfund sites, brownfields,contaminated fish consumption, and waterand air pollution—have been the primaryfocus of many grassroots organization incommunities of color. The understandingthat poor and minority communities weredisproportionately burdened with environ-mental contaminations in comparison withmore affluent and non-minority communi-ties has been documented extensively(Bullard 1994). The initial movement illus-trated the needs of disenfranchised popu-lations and placed environmental health ina central role in effectively fighting unjustprivate and public policies and manage-ment.

The framework incorporates a strategymodeled after previous social movements.The civil rights movement in particular pro-vides a master frame that validates the strug-gle for rights by marginalized individuals.Environmental justice movement advocatesperceive themselves as second-class citizensto whom governmental and corporategroups do not feel accountable, and claimfull rights, from fair community treatment tolegal protection (Capek 1993). The frame-work includes five principles of environ-

mental justice: (1) guaranteeing the right toenvironmental protection; (2) preventingharm before it occurs; (3) shifting the bur-den of proof to the polluters; (4) obviatingproof of intent to discriminate; and (5)redressing existing inequities (Capek 1993;Bullard 1994).

Finally, a call to abolish environmentalracism is also viewed as a significant ele-ment within the environmental justiceframe, though it is not listed as one of thefive principles. Since the environmental jus-tice frame is built around a concept ofrights, these elements are applicable to pub-lic environmental concern and to the envi-ronmental decision-making process. Theseelements include social issues such as thedistribution of resources, the role of valuesin decision-making, conflict managementand resolution, and the inclusion of margin-alized groups and perspectives (Opotowand Clayton 1994). The elements of theenvironmental justice frame are unified bystrong emphases on individual and commu-nity rights, the democratic process, andrespect for individuals and communities.The framework also attempts to answerwhat contributes to and produces unequalprotection. These elements are firmlygrounded in fairness and in an understand-ing of the concept of justice in the UnitedStates.

So, what is justice? Bullard (1994)contends that “[e]nvironmental decisionmakers have failed to address the ‘justice’question of who gets help and who doesnot; who can afford help and who cannot;why some contaminated communities getstudied while others get left off the researchagenda; why industry poisons some com-munities and not others; why some contam-inated communities get cleaned up whileothers do not; and why some communities



are protected and others are not protected.”The concept of justice is viewed as a valuejudgment based on beliefs about the moralrightness of a person’s fate (Cvetkovich andEarle 1994; Cook 1995). Treatment byother people and applications of rules andregulations are judged to be just if appropri-ate standards are met. These standards aredefined by supporting values and morals. Inturn, these values are used to evaluate ifpeople’s actions and other events can bejustified. To understand justice is to under-stand something that impacts everyone’slives.

Today, the phrase “environmental jus-tice,” as it is currently used by grassrootsenvironmentalists, refers to the need to dis-tribute environmental hazards fairly acrossdifferent demographic groups and to con-nect environmental issues with social jus-tice concerns (Opotow and Clayton 1994).Though the environmental justice move-ment focuses on the disproportionate sitingof hazards in low-income, minority commu-

nities, it has a deeper, more salient concernin the fair and just allocation of naturalresources. The environmental justice move-ment emphasizes that the natural world isurban as well as wilderness. The movementalso asserts that a safe and healthy environ-ment—clean air, water, and land—is a basicright of all individuals and communities.The environmental justice movement goesbeyond focusing on specific environmentalhazards and represents a community-drivensocial movement that attempts to address allenvironmental issues that negatively affectpeople of color, tribal members, and poorcommunity members. The movementbelieves that the social, cultural, environ-mental, and physical health of individualsand communities is at the core of ensuringthat each person has the right to live in aclean, safe, high-quality environment. It hasdrawn attention to our nation’s most vul-nerable populations—children, the elderly,the poor and other groups—who may serveas victims, and has expanded the environ-



mental justice definition to take account ofplaces where people live, work, and play byincluding four interrelated environments:natural, built, social, and cultural. This newvision has dramatically expanded the dis-course concerning environmental justice toinclude disparities in housing, transporta-tion, food, and parks and green spaces.

Environmental injustices and childdevelopment

Research has established that theneighborhood environment exerts signifi-cant influence on child development.Children’s use of neighborhood space, suchas streets, parks and playgrounds, con-tributes significantly to their social, psycho-logical, and physical development. Outdoorplay provides opportunities for socializingwith and learning from peers, physicalactivity (Loukaitou-Sideris and Stieglitz2002), and exploration and way-findingskill acquisition (Moore and Young 1978).Previous studies indicate that inner-city res-idents are more dependent on public parksand open space than residents of suburbanand exurban communities (Loukaitou-Sideris and Stieglitz 2002). At the sametime, access to neighborhood parks andplaygrounds in low-income, inner-city areashas been compromised by concentration ofsocial and environmental risks such ascrime, public use and sale of illegal drugs,and declining environmental quality.

With specific regard to constraints onpark use, Taylor (1993) found that amongresidents of New Haven, Connecticut,parks were perceived as dangerous, druginfested, and not well maintained. In partic-ular, women did not perceive parks asappropriate places for family recreation.Talbot and Kaplan (1992) also found thatfear of danger was a deterrent to park use

among Detroit-area residents. Moore(1989) observed that fears associated withcrime and road traffic among children andparents affect children’s travel to play-grounds. West (1993) suggested that use ofurban parks outside of one’s neighborhoodis complicated by having to traverse gangterritory.

Barriers to greater use of neighbor-hood outdoor spaces hold important impli-cations for children and adolescents’ senseof personal and community identity (Mor-row 2000, 2001). Therefore there is a needto increase understanding of how childrenperceive environmental quality and howtheir perceptions affect their use of neigh-borhood outdoor spaces.

Environmental quality of the neighbor-hood is also important since the leisureactivities of children are more likely tooccur in outdoor neighborhood spaces(Taylor et al. 1998; Moore 1989) andbecause there is greater dependence onpublic parks and open space in inner-citycommunities. Access to neighborhood out-door spaces is threatened by a number ofenvironmental risk factors such as crime,drugs, gang activity (Farver et al. 2000;Shakoor and Chambers 2001; Rasmussenet al. 2004), systemic poverty (Brooks-Gunn et al. 1997; Bradley and Corwyn2002), traffic dangers (Moore 1989), andpollution (Bullard 1996; Di Chiro 1996).Empirical studies have linked such factorsto a range of negative developmental out-comes in inner-city neighborhoods, partic-ularly those of minority status. For example,in a survey of 1,035 elementary and highschool students on Chicago’s South Side,Shakoor and Chambers (2001) reportedthat 70% of the students have witnessed aviolent crime (robbery, stabbing, or shoot-ing) and 46% had been a victim of one of



eight violent crimes. Farver et al. (2000)demonstrated that children’s perceptions ofneighborhood conditions correlate withsocio-emotional functioning. In their study,children’s drawings were used to assessneighborhood conditions. The amount ofviolent content in the drawings correlatednegatively with measures of scholastic com-petence, peer acceptance, and behavioralcontent. Violent content correlated posi-tively with external locus of control.Amount of gang activity in the drawingscorrelated negatively with scholastic com-petence and peer acceptance and positivelywith external locus of control. Drug usecontent correlated negatively with scholas-tic competence and behavioral conduct.Neighborhoods having high socioeconomicstatus associate positively with a range ofacademic achievement outcomes (Leven-thal and Brooks-Gunn 2002).

ConclusionsThere are real consequences for the

children living in inner-city areas. Thecumulative disadvantageous risks faced byinner-city children allows for the introduc-tion of a new framework that goes beyondthe short-term focus on environmental jus-tice for children by illustrating the impor-tance of structural effects in producingsocial-psychological factors that may influ-ence children’s current and future behav-iors. I attest that race and class status inter-acts with place in a unique way and createsmany challenges that lead to residents expe-riencing cumulative disadvantages.

Consequently, the social and culturalideology present and the built environmen-tal setting will continue to be shaped byboth a history of racial segregation and sep-aration and a deterrent from mainstreamideals. Numerous outcomes result from the

simultaneous mediation of race, class, andplace. For example, urban children are dis-proportionately dependent on local envi-ronmental experiences. These everydayexperiences are an important aspect of thechildren’s lives, yet the majority of the U.S.has no experience with the kinds of neigh-borhood contexts in which urban childrenreside. Add to this the fact that many main-tain ties through their social network withother poor family members, friends, andneighbors, and the complication for provid-ing safe natural resource experiencesincreases.

These differences mean that urbanchildren are disproportionately introducedto negative environmental experiencesaccording to their structural background.As neighborhoods continue to becomemore segregated and poverty more concen-trated in urban neighborhoods, the envi-ronmental experiences may be laced with aheightened level of fear of the outdoors dueto the emergence of cultural practices torestrict children’s freedom through par-ental/guardian control, curfew, and surveil-lances (Outley and Floyd 2002). In addi-tion, environmental injustices lead manyparents to seek alternative play provisionswithin private markets for their children.Unfortunately, issues of affordability andaccessibility will keep many children withinthe community due to lack of cultural andeconomic collateral.

As illustrated, children living in inner-city areas are affected disproportionately.The exposure of children to these environ-mental issues has the potential to affectfuture generations. Access to children’s per-spectives is significant since children are the“primary consumers” of neighborhoodenvironments and thus are more likely tohave more frequent exposure to neighbor-



hood conditions. Moreover, children andadolescents (along with older adults) are themost vulnerable to risk factors in the neigh-borhoods, yet historically are often neglect-ed in urban planning and policy decisions.Children and young people are an integral

part of just and ecologically sustainablecommunities. Providing access to children’svoices addresses the issue of incongruenceand divergence between those who plan orstudy urban community spaces and thosewho actually use them.



ReferencesBradley, R.H., and R.F. Corwyn. 2002. Socioeconomic status and child development.

Annual Review of Psychology 53, 371–399.Brooks-Gunn, J., G.J. Duncan, and J.L. Aber, eds. 1997. Neighborhood Poverty. New York:

Russell Sage Foundation.Bullard, R. 1990. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class and Environmental Quality. Boulder,

Colo.: Westview Press.———, ed. 1994. Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots. Boston,

Mass.: South End Press.———. 1996. Environmental justice: It’s more than waste facility siting. Social Science Quar-

terly 77, 493–499.Capek, S. 1993. The environmental justice frame: A conceptual discussion and application.

Social Problems 40, 5–25.Cook, K. 1995. Expectations, evaluations and equity. Annual Review of Sociology 9, 217– 241.Cvetkovich, G., and T.C. Earle. 1994. The construction of justice: A case study of public

participation in land management. Journal of Social Issues 50:3, 161–178.Di Chiro, G. 1996. Nature as community: The convergence of environment and social jus-

tice. In Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. W. Cronon, ed.New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 298–320.

Farver, J.M., C. Ghosh, and C. Garcia. 2000. Children’s perceptions of their neighborhoods.Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 21, 139–163.

Leventhal, T., and J. Brooks-Gunn. 2002. Poverty and child development. The InternationalEncyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences 3, Article 78, 18890–11893.

Loukaitou-Sideris, A., and O. Stieglitz. 2002. Children in Los Angeles parks: A study ofequity, quality, and children satisfaction with neighborhood parks. Town PlanningReview 73:4, 467–488.

Moore, R. 1989. Plants as play props. Children’s Environmental Quarterly, 6, 3-6.Moore, R., and D. Young. 1978. Childhood outdoors: Toward a social ecology of the land-

scape. In Human Behavior and the Environment: Volume 3, Children and the Environ-ment. I. Altman and J. Wohlwill, eds. New York: Plenum Press, 83–130.

Morrow, V. 2000. “Dirty looks” and “trampy places” in young people’s accounts of commu-nity and neighbourhood: Implications for health inequalities. Critical Public Health10:2, 141–152.

———. 2001. Using qualitative methods to elicit young people’s perspectives on their envi-ronments: some ideas for community health initiatives. Health Education Research,16:3, 255–268.

Opotow, S., and S. Clayton. 1994. Green justice: Conceptions of fairness and the naturalworld. Journal of Social Issues 50:3, 1.

Outley, C.W., and M.F. Floyd. 2002. The home they live in: Inner city children’s views onthe influence of parenting strategies on their leisure behavior. Leisure Sciences 14,161–179.

Rasmussen, A., M.S. Aber, and A. Bhana. 2004. Adolescent coping and neighborhood vio-lence: Perceptions, exposure, and urban youths’ efforts to deal with danger. AmericanJournal of Community Psychology 33, 61–75.

Shakoor, B.H., and D. Chalmers. 1991. Co-victimization of African-American children whowitness violence: effects on cognitive, emotional and behavioral development. Journalof the National Medical Association 83, 233–238.

Talbot, J.F., and R. Kaplan. 1992. Preferences for nearby natural settings: Ethnic and agevariations, In Managing Urban and High-Use Recreation Settings: Proceedings of the 4thNorth American Symposium on Society and Resource Management. P.H. Gobster, ed.Chicago: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, 93–97.

Taylor, A.F., A. Wiley, F.E. Kuo, and W.C. Sullivan. 1998. Growing up in the inner city:Green spaces as places to grow. Environment and Behavior 30:1, 3–27.

Taylor, D.E. 1993. Environmentalism and the politics of inclusion. In Confronting Environ-mental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots, R. Bullard, ed. Boston: South End Press, 53–61.

United Church of Christ, Commission on Racial Justice. 1987. Toxic Waste and Race in theUnited States: A National Report on the Racial and Socioeconomic Characteristics ofCommunities Surrounding Hazardous Waste Sites. New York: United Church of Christ.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Environmental Justice Strategy: ExecutiveOrder 12898. Office of Administration and Resources Management (3103), EPA/200-R-95-002. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1983. Siting of Hazardous Waste Landfills and their Cor-relation with Racial and Economic Status of Surrounding Communities. Washington,D.C.: Government Printing Office.

West , P.C. 1993. The tyranny of metaphor: Interracial relations, minority recreation, and thewildland–urban interface. In Culture, Conflict and Communication in the Wildland–Urban Interface. A. Ewert, D.J. Chavez, and A.W. Magill, eds. Boulder, Colo.: WestviewPress, 109–115.

Corliss Wilson Outley, Texas A&M University, Department of Recreation, Park andTourism Sciences, College Station, Texas 77802-2261; [email protected]



I grew up in a concrete jungleMy trees were made of steelTheir bones were taut with theLaughter and sorrows Of many long forgotten families.Their leaves were the discarded papersOf yesterday’s news,The canopies of each treeForming the tar paper beachesWe called home.

I grew up in a concrete jungleWhere our daily transportation Was a city bus on a crowded corner.The old bus driver would let Me collect the tokens,Enjoying my delight in feeding The hungry bus.Only the white folks had the fancyYellow buses, he would tell me,Those buses actually took kidsHome door to school door so they didn’t

have to run through city puddlesIn the grey rain.

In older years, we traveled to school bysubway,

in a haze of sweatCrammed between doorsAs the legendary A trainDanced its way to Harlem.Doo do do ta do dah ... I would humAs the train collected and disgorged

Suited business folksUntil only the black folkRemained, bogging on into Harlem.

I grew up in a jungle of contradictionsTrees grew from small holes in the con-

creteMy father broke open for me.Flowers grew in milk jugsAnd once even a butterflyCalled in for a visit.We could travel the subway To the Coney Island beachEat hot dogs andLose them again whipping around theAncient rollercoaster,And we cooled our feet in the waters of

Jamaica BayIn the shadows of Steeplechase park.My mother rode the same train,Ate the same hot dogsAnd sat in the same shadowsGiving me ownership to that patch ofSand, generations old.

I grew up in a concrete jungle by a riverA deep mysterious river withUnnamed unseen creatures chasing Floating plastic bottles on the water’s sur-

face.In later years, I would tell my friendsAbout that river,And watch them imagine a lifeOf yachts and marinas,


The Concrete JungleGillian Bowser

Men in white shorts with crisp drinks intheir hands.

My river was home to the weary bargesand tugboats

Who would blow their horns as I dangledMy feet in my river while restingat the ankles of the Brooklyn Bridge.

I went to school by subways under theroots of

My concrete jungle.Crammed between the businessmenIn suits, ladies fanning sweating faces,A man mumbling in the corner,I could do my homeworkBetween 59th street and 125th

As the A trained rattled to Harlem...“Who was Harriet Tubman and describe the underground railroad”the teacher had asked...must be a version of this A train I would

thinkrumbling slaves through smelly under-

ground tunnelssubdued sparks flashing from its wheels...Hard to think how the men and their slave-

chasing dogs Got past the token booth collector.

I grew up in the concrete forest,And heard Nikki sing of negroes in the

southMaya mourning our lost innocence, andWatched Coltrane sway in a smoky haze.Malcolm gone in a jangle of discord,Proud black men stood tall and defiant,And my father cried for Martin.In that concrete jungle, men with hoodsWere far away, where fire hoses chased our

cousinsBut we supped at tables with Caribbean

spicesBlessings muttered in many languages.Matzo balls and barbeque mixedOn tacos...

I grew up in the concrete JungleAnd that jungle is always my home.Yet that anchor in memoriesGives me my rope to exploreNew jungles and compare theirDusty depths to my home.Yet always the concrete jungle calls meAnd I hear her rumble in my sleepHer restless lights tease my eyesAnd her voice whispersIn tune to distant car alarms...



Welcome home.

GEORGE WRIGHT SOCIETY

P. O. Box 65 Hancock, Michigan 49930-0065 USA

www.georgewright.org

Dedicated to the Protection, Preservation, and Management of Cultural and Natural Parks and Reserves

Through Research and Education

http://www.georgewright.org

FORU THE GEORGEM WRIGHT - georgewright.org · • The GWS Natural Resource Management Award goes to...

Documents

Transcript of FORU THE GEORGEM WRIGHT - georgewright.org · • The GWS Natural Resource Management Award goes to...