EXPLORING THE POTENTIAL USE OF WEB 2.0-BASED TECHNOLOGY TO PROTECT CULTURAL RESOURCES

EXPLORING THE POTENTIAL USE OF WEB 2.0-BASED TECHNOLOGY TO

PROTECT CULTURAL RESOURCES WITH APPLICATION TO GLEN CANYON

NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND RAINBOW BRIDGE NATIONAL

MONUMENT

By

Christopher Ebling, Bachelor of Science

APPROVED:

_____________________________________Dr. Theresa Coble, Thesis Director

_____________________________________Dr. Daniel Scognamillo, Committee Member

_____________________________________Dr. Yanli Zhang, Committee Member

_____________________________________Dr. Dorothy Anderson, Committee Member

_____________________________________Ms. Rosemary Sucec, Committee Member

_____________________________________Dr. Mary Nelle Brunson, Dean, Graduate School

EXPLORING THE POTENTIAL USE OF WEB 2.0-BASED TECHNOLOGY TO

PROTECT CULTURAL RESOURCES WITH APPLICATION TO GLEN CANYON

NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND RAINBOW BRIDGE NATIONAL

MONUMENT

Christopher Ebling, Bachelor of Science in Forestry

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of

Stephen F. Austin State University

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements

For the Degree of

ii

Masters of Science in Resource Interpretation

STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE UNIVERSITY

May 6, 2015

iii

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

Copyright 2015, Christopher A. Ebling

iv

This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law,

no part of this document may be reproduced without the

expressed permission of the author.

ABSTRACT

In 2011 the management of the Glen Canyon and Rainbow

Bridge National Recreation area (GLCA/RABR) engaged a

research team to provide managers with a strategy for

protection of cultural sites along the shoreline of Lake

Powell. The team consists of academic staff from Stephen F.

Austin State University, North Carolina State University,

and the University of Copenhagen, as well as both graduate

and undergraduate students from Stephen F. Austin State

University.

This primary research project generated three ancillary

research projects focused on specific aspects of cultural

resource protection and recreation use at GLCA/RABR

conducted by graduate students on the research team. The

first project focused on boater relationships with the v

resource and management. The second study focused on the

types of messages that will be most effective in countering

non-compliant behaviors by visitors. This study (the third)

examined the potential impact of Web 2.0 technology and

social media applications to influence non-compliant visitor

behaviors with the objective of reducing impacts to cultural

and archeological resources within the GLCA/RABR.

The purpose of this study was three-fold. The first

objective is to understand the experiences, perspectives

and/or beliefs of park managers regarding using Web 2.0

technology to protect cultural resources at their sites.

Second, the study investigated the extent and nature of

emerging Web 2.0-based communities that are focused on

National Park Service (NPS) sites. Third, the study provided

recommendations for using Web 2.0 technology to protect

cultural resources at GLCA/RABR.

Using a mixed method approach the study conducted a

detailed netnographic investigation of 22 NPS sites. The

sites were chosen using purposeful sampling with guidance

from GCLA/RABR staff. Once the netnographic study was

vi

complete, the researcher, again with guidance from GCLA/RABR

staff, chose two sites for detailed interviews with on-site

staff members. Using a snowball sampling technique, an

additional seven sites were added to the interview list

based on recommendations from the initial two respondents.

In total, the researcher interviewed nine individuals

representing seven NPS sites.

The results show that park-based social media

communities have indeed emerged. Further, these park-based

social media communities derive their shared identities on

the basis of common interests and activities. An analysis of

the netnographic data suggests the existence of three

different community types: intentional, extended intentional, and

incidental. Intentional communities involve social media sites

that are created and maintained by Park Service staff.

Interactions between intentional community members typically

involve the exchange of bi-directional postings. Extended

intentional communities form when Park Service staff extends

social media interactions to external communities beyond the

intentional community. Extended intentional communities

vii

often involve interactions between Park Service staff and

organizations such as non-profit organizations, advocacy

groups, commercial enterprises and other government

agencies. Incidental communities form when individuals come

together to share a common interest or activity focus using

a shared social media application. Incidental communities

can be temporal and fluid, with community members joining

and exiting as interests and activity involvement changes

over time.

Interview data suggest that community members,

especially intentional community members, will engage in a

variety of social media-based activities focused on the park

site. For example, park visitors and other interested

parties participate in photography contests focused on park

resources. Others have joined in resource monitoring and

reporting activities, thereby extending the reach of park

staff. However, interview participants were unable to verify

that social media engagement fostered resource protective

attitudes and behaviors. In fact, the sparse social media

application metrics available to park staff (likes, shares,

viii

favorites, re-tweets) suggests that posts containing

protective messages generate a small response when compared

to posts containing images of scenery or wildlife and/or

posts that make use of interpretive techniques. Exploring

the relationship between park social media

postings/community building efforts and the resource

protective attitudes and behaviors of target audiences is an

area worthy of further research. The results of this study

should be combined with the two other studies focused on key

cultural resource protection challenges at GLCA/RABR. Also,

future research could examine what happens when social media

applications are used to deliver messages that (1) elicit

key behavioral, normative, and control beliefs (Ham, 2007),

(2) target specific boater communities, and (3) modify

boater attitudes and behaviors such that cultural resource

protection is strengthened within the park.

ix

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS

I would like to recognize all of the help and support I

have received that made this study possible. First and

foremost is my faculty adviser Dr. Theresa Coble. Thank you

for all of your insights, direction, and the many hours of

review you provided to guide me along the way. Second I’d

like to thank the members of the GCLA/RABR research team;

Dr. Dorothy Anderson, Dr, Dr. Frank Sondergaard Jensen, Dr.

Yu-fai Leung, and fellow graduate students Ryan Scavo and

Doug Lowthian for the great teamwork involved in the overall

project. I would like to thank Ms. Rosemary Sucec, the

Cultural Resource Program Manager at GCLA/RABR, for her

insights into her visitor community, her help in selecting

sites to conduct research, and her willingness to support

the project at any and all times and in any way as well as

the NPS respondents who took time out of their busy

schedules to speak with me. Finally I would like to thank

my wife, Karen, for her support, encouragement, and

x

cajoling. None of this would have been possible without

her.

xi

CONTENTS

COPYRIGHT NOTICE...................................iii

ABSTRACT............................................iv

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS....................................vii

LIST OF TABLES......................................xi

LIST OF FIGURES....................................xii

INTRODUCTION........................................15

Impacts from Recreational Activity.................19

Primary Cultural Resource Protection Research......21

Objectives of Web 2.0 Study........................23

LITERATURE REVIEW...................................25

Factors That Influence Visitor Behavior at GLCA/RABR

...................................................25

Societal Norms.....................................27

Community Norms....................................28

What Is Community?.................................29

Web 2.0-Facilitated Community Engagement...........31

Activity Theory....................................35

National Park Service Perspective..................44

METHODOLOGY.........................................48

The Netnographic Study Element.....................49

Netnographic Data Collection Process Detail......53

Interview Study Element............................58

Interview Process Detail.........................59

Interview Plan...................................61

Interview Questions..............................62

Data Analysis......................................64

Netnographic Data Analysis.......................64

Interview Data Analysis..........................65

RESULTS.............................................67

Data Coding Results................................68

Theme 1: Managers actively employed visitor use management

strategies and tactics to protect park archeological, cultural, historical,

and natural resources..................................72

Strategies and Tactics Used to Address Visitor-

Caused Impacts...................................73

Theme 2: The parks have begun to use Web 2.0 and social media

applications to engage their communities of interest............77

Social Media Applications Used and Their Strategic

Purposes.........................................78

Respondent’s Perception of Constraints Limiting

Social Media Application.........................80

Respondent’s Perceptions of Social Media

Effectiveness....................................84

Facebook Use by Parks Selected for Netnographic

Study............................................86

Twitter Use by Parks Selected for Netnographic

Study............................................95

Park Use of Social Media to Engage Visitors in

Monitoring Programs.............................100

Theme 3: Internet-based communities of interest have formed that are

focused on the parks...................................104

Intentional Community...........................104

Extended Intentional Community..................111

Incidental/Ad Hoc Community.....................113

DISCUSSION.........................................123

Intentional Community.............................123

Extended Intentional Community....................125

Incidental/Ad Hoc Community.......................127

Recommendations...................................131

CONCLUSION.........................................137

REFERENCES.........................................141

APPENDIX A: GLCA/RABR PORTENTIAL INTERVIEW LIST. . . .147

VITA...............................................149

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Aspects of Community in Literature........15

Table 2. The Netnographic Research Process.........35

Table 3. Sites Selected for Netnographic Study.. . . .36

Table 4. Data Elements Collected By Application Type.

....................................................37

Table 5. Interview Respondents.....................43

Table 6. Data Segments, Coding Categories, Concepts,

and Themes..........................................53

Table 7. Visitor Use Management Tactics............57

Table 8. Sites Mapped to Intentional Community.. . . .88

Table 9. Number of Sites in Extended Community.. . . .95

Table 10. Sites Mapped to Incidental/Ad Hoc Community.

....................................................97

Table 11. Mapping Community Structure to Netnographic

Study Data.........................................111

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2. The Social Network Spiral................20

Figure 4. Links to Social Media Applications from Park

NPS Home Page.......................................38

Figure 5. Data Collection from Park Facebook Page.. 39

Figure 6. Date of DEWA's First Facebook Post.......40

Figure 7. Using Facebook Search Function to Locate

Facebook Sites......................................41

Figure 8. Flickr Search Function Result............42

Figure 9. Linkage Between Park Facebook Page and

External Organizations..............................49

Figure 10. An Interpretive Facebook Post...........70

Figure 11. An Educational Facebook Post............71

Figure 12. Facebook Used for Visitor Engagement.. . .72

Figure 13. Facebook Used to Reach Out to the

Community...........................................73

Figure 14. Facebook Used for Outreach to Underserved

Audiences...........................................74

Figure 15. Facebook Used to Provide General

Information and Promote Safety......................75

Figure 16. Facebook Used to Publicize Resource

Protection Efforts..................................76

Figure 17. Facebook Used to Foster Resource Protective

Attitudes and Behavior..............................77

Figure 18. Facebook Used to Promote Photo Sharing.. 78

Figure 19. Twitter Used to Provide Interpretive

Opportunities.......................................79

Figure 20. Twitter Used to Promote Educational

Outcomes............................................80

Figure 21. Twitter Used to Engage in Outreach to

Underserved Audiences...............................80

Figure 22. Twitter Used to Announce an Event.......81

Figure 23. Twitter Used to Convey General Information.

....................................................81

Figure 24. Twitter Used to Convey Safety Information.

....................................................82

Figure 25. Twitter Used to Engage Visitors Directly.

....................................................82

Figure 26. Monitoring Program Invitation...........84

Figure 27. Visitor Resource Monitoring Facebook Post.

....................................................85

Figure 28. Instagram Post Showing a Mountain Goat.. 86

Figure 29. Flickr Post Showing Seasonal Staff......86

Figure 30. NOCA Facebook Community Page............90

Figure 31. A Typical Facebook Posting..............91

Figure 32. Facebook Posting from External Community

Members.............................................92

Figure 33. Facebook Picture Sharing................93

Figure 34. BICA Twitter Community Page.............94

Figure 35. GRTE Extended Community linkages........96

Figure 36. Incidental/Ad Hoc Community Structure.. .99

Figure 37. Flickr Image Sharing Community.........100

Figure 38. YouTube Video Sharing Community........101

Figure 39. Pinterest Discovery Application........101

Figure 40. Tumblr Blogging Community..............102

Figure 41. Intentional Community Structure........106

Figure 42. Extended Intentional Community.........108

Figure 43. Incidental/Ad Hoc Community Structure.. 109

Figure 44. Intentional Community Recommendations.. 116

Figure 45. Extended Intentional Community

Recommendations....................................117

Figure 46. Incidental/Ad Hoc Community

Recommendations....................................118

INTRODUCTION

Lake Powell at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area

(GLCA) is a place of stark beauty, powerful landscapes and

thousands of acres of clear deep water. In the midst of a

harsh desert landscape, it offers visitors’ opportunities

for swimming, boating, water skiing, fishing, wake boarding,

kayaking and other water-based recreational activities. The

lake provides easy access to the formerly relatively

inaccessible Rainbow Bridge National Monument (RABR). It is

a place of many contrasts: the reds and tans of the desert

rock and the deep blue and green water; the heat and arid

climate in contrast to the abundance of water; its

wilderness character, remote location and virtually

inaccessible canyons juxtaposed with the motorized, semi-

urban nature of much of the water and shoreline recreation

at the park. A 2007 visitor survey reported that 43% of

visitors had been to the park more than 3 times in their

lifetime (Holmes, Manni, Eury, & Hollenhorst, 2007). This

repeat visitation indicates a possible sense of ownership

and attachment among a significant portion of its users.

Lake users and entrepreneurs have invested millions of

dollars in boats and commercial infrastructure to facilitate

recreating on and temporarily inhabiting Lake Powell and

GLCA/RABR. Despite this sense of ownership and attachment,

there is a reported lack of stewardship behavior among

members of the boating population at the recreation area

(Various park staff, personal and research team interviews,

December 2011).

The history of recreational boater use in the Glen

Canyon and Lake Powell area is not long. The first

expeditions into the area in the late 1800’s mainly saw the

river as an obstacle to travel rather than a destination

unto its own. John Wesley Powell’s 1869 expedition, which

gave us the name “Glen Canyon,” was the first to travel the

length of the river corridor rather than just crossing it

(Powell, 2008). His journals painted a picture of beauty and

enchantment, but the remote location and lack of

infrastructure prohibited frequent travel in the area until

well into the next century.

In the 1930s, recreational travel began in earnest on

the Colorado River; however, for the most part visitation

occurred downstream from Glen Canyon and up two Colorado

River tributaries known as the San Juan and Escalante

Rivers. Rafters did begin to float downstream through Glen

Canyon from Hite and Bullfrog to Lees Ferry and points

beyond. Future Senator and Presidential contender Barry

Goldwater rafted Glen Canyon in 1940. He also ran a lodge at

the roadway entering the Rainbow Bridge National Monument

(RABR) for a time. He would later write,

While Glen Canyon dam has created the most beautiful lake in the world and brought millions of dollars to my state and the state of Utah, I think of that river as I saw it as a boy. And thatis the way I would like to see it again.

Though the late Senator’s longings for the wild river were

passionate, it is telling that while at a rest stop near the

Utah-Arizona state line on his 1940 rafting expedition, he

took the occasion to carve his name in the sandstone. He and

others of his generation were predecessors for the many

thousands who would etch their names in sandstone or paint

them on canyon walls, beginning the widespread problem of

graffiti in GLCA and RABR today (Farmer, 1999).

The character of Glen Canyon recreation and tourism

took a decidedly sharp turn in 1963. Prior to the

construction of the dam, recreational use of the river

corridor was limited to the intrepid few, those who floated

in army surplus inflatable rafts down the river or those who

pushed up river by outboard motor from Lees Ferry to Bridge

Canyon or up the San Juan River. After Lake Powell was

created, thousands and eventually millions of visitors

embarked upon houseboats, personal watercraft, all manners

of powerboats, and to a lesser extent, human-powered craft,

to explore the largest lake in the west. Figure 1 provides a

map of Glen Canyon and Lake Powell as they exist today. From

the early 1960s onward, Glen Canyon was primarily regarded

as a lake created for recreational use, water storage, and

hydro-electrical power generation rather than a canyon that

was drowned to satisfy our seemingly insatiable appetite for

water and energy in the arid southwest (Farmer, 1999).

Figure 1. Map of GLCA/RABR.

Impacts from Recreational Activity

Visitor impacts to resources are a significant issue

along the shorelines of Lake Powell at the GLCA/RABR, units

of the National Park Service (NPS) stretching across

southern Utah, into northern Arizona. With an estimated

1,900 miles of shoreline, the lake provides boater access to

many of the culturally significant areas managed by the

park, such as archeological and paleontological sites like

Descending Sheep Panel and Three Roof Ruin (National Park

Service).

The park has experienced a continual flux in visitation

since opening for public use in 1972, with annual

recreational visitation averaging over two million since

2010 –many of which occurring as recreational boating on

Lake Powell (NPS). Similar to other Utah recreation areas,

motorboat use is the primary form of recreation on Lake

Powell (NPS). In fact, the 2010 Utah State Boating Strategic

Plan highlights that, although registered boater numbers

have remained consistent over the past ten years

(approximately 70,000 registered vessels annually), boating

areas have not increased, thus large numbers of boaters

compete for limited resources (lakes, rivers, etc.).

Visitors to Lake Powell access is available at monitored

marinas including Wahweap, Antelope Point, Dangling Rope,

Halls Crossing, and Bullfrog as well as a launch site in the

Hite District (National Park Service, n.d.) However, once on

the water, visitor activity monitoring declines

significantly, including at sites included in this study.

The vastness of the recreation area combined with the

seemingly unregulated visitor accessibility yet limited

availability of on-site patrol or law enforcement staff has

significant implications for the rich cultural and natural

resources located along Lake Powell. As a result, in recent

years, GLCA/RABR has experienced significant resource

degradation issues ranging from looting and theft of

artifacts to extensive graffiti and overall site vandalism

caused by non-compliant behavior.

Historically, the NPS has responded to an array of

visitor impacts caused by non-compliant behavior. This

behavior is defined by Sharpe and Johnson, respectively, as

“any act that detracts from the social or physical

environment” and minor rule-breaking behavior or failures to

comply with minimum impact regulations (e.g. off-trail

hiking, souvenir collecting, feeding wild animals, and

littering” (Anderson, Lime, & Wang, 1998). In a mid-1990s

service wide survey, Anderson notes that park managers

estimated visitor impacts caused by non-compliant behavior

cost millions of dollars annually – with “historical sites

suffer[ing] the most damage” of all (Anderson et al., 1998).

Thus, GCLA/RABR’s compliancy and visitor impact issues are

not an anomaly. However, even in the face of non-compliancy

issues, land management agencies, like the NPS, are still

required to diligently work toward fulfilling their agency

mission. For the NPS, this is to (NPS Management Policies,

2006):

Promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas…by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks…to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. (p. 10)

Moreover, as stated in the park’s enabling legislation,

GLCA/RABR must also “provide for public outdoor recreation

use and enjoyment of Lake Powell…and to preserve scenic,

scientific, and historical features” (Glen Canyon National

Recreation Area Enabling Legislation). Consequently, as

resource degradation continues, fulfilling the park mission

will prove increasingly difficult.

Primary Cultural Resource Protection Research

In 2011 the management of GLCA/RABR engaged a research

team to provide managers with a strategy for protecting

cultural sites along the shoreline of Lake Powell. The team

consisted of professorial staff from Stephen F. Austin State

University, North Carolina State University, and the

University of Copenhagen as well as both graduate and

undergraduate students from Stephen F. Austin State

University.

GCLA/RABR management divided Lake Powell into three

main units, Lee’s Ferry, Wahweap and Bullfrog. The Lee’s

Ferry unit includes that portion of the Colorado River that

lies below the Glen Canyon dam. The Wahweap unit includes

Wahweap bay and the area between the Glen Canyon dam and the

Bullfrog marina. The Bullfrog unit includes Bullfrog Bay and

the area above Bullfrog marina.

While GLCA/RABR possesses management plans, all were

written between the 1970s and 1990s. Since that time threats

have changed and priorities have shifted. Across the

country, existing, disparate research provides guidance on

lakeshore site protection, but no overarching, synthetic

report exists on the best practices that constitute a

protection strategy, and that simultaneously anticipates the

next 40 years of park management at GLCA/RABR.

The research team reviewed and built upon current

literature and surveyed field experts to identify the most

effective methods for protecting cultural sites from adverse

or unacceptable impacts. The review included: (a) an

examination of literature specific to visitor/boater impacts

to cultural sites located along lakeshores; (b) contact with

lakeshore recreation areas, whether federal (like other NPS

units) or state, to identify their strategies for site

protection; (c) an examination of the value of tactics, such

as educational programs, interpretive media, camera

surveillance, signage; site closure, the presence of

uniformed personnel, and site stewardship programs; (d) an

examination of the literature as it relates to boater

attitudes and perceptions; and (e) an examination of

innovative approaches to protect cultural resources. The

final deliverable included a written report that summarizes

the results of the literature review and outlines

recommendations for the effective protection and management

of lakeshore cultural sites at GLCA/RABR.

This primary research project spawned three ancillary

research projects focused on specific aspects of cultural

resource protection and recreation use at GLCA/RABR

conducted by graduate students on the research team. The

first project focused on boater relationships with the

resource and management. The second focused on the types of

messages that will be most effective in countering non-

compliant behaviors by visitors. The third studied the

potential impact of Web 2.0 wireless technology and social

media applications to influence non-compliant visitor

behaviors with the objective of reducing impacts to cultural

and archeological resources within the GLCA/RABR.

Objectives of Web 2.0 Study

The purpose of this study was three-fold. The first

objective was to understand the experiences, perspectives

and/or beliefs of park managers regarding the use of Web 2.0

technology to protect cultural resources at their sites. For

example, the study explored NPS personnel’s perspectives on

how Web 2.0 technology has helped cultural resource

protection efforts at their site. Second, the study

investigated the extent and nature of the Web 2.0-based

communities that have formed that are focused NPS parks.

Third, the study provided recommendations for using Web 2.0

technology to protect cultural resources at GLCA/RABR.

In summary, the objectives of the research project were to:

1. Understand the experiences, perspectives and/or beliefs of park personnel regarding using Web 2.0 technology to protect cultural resources at their sites.

Explore whether Web 2.0 -based programs can influence visitor behaviors.

Explore whether Web 2.0 -based programs can foster a sense of community and alter communitynorms and behaviors.

2. Identify barriers and constraints that inhibit theeffective use of Web 2.0 technologies within the parks.

3. Provide recommendations for using Web 2.0 technology to protect cultural resources at GLCA/RABR.

The audience for this study is wide and diverse. Within

GLCA/RABR the audience includes staff engaged directly in

the protection of park cultural resources, such as senior

management, law enforcement staff, and cultural resource

staff as well as those involved indirectly, such as

interpretive and maintenance staff. Key non-NSP stakeholders

in the communities surrounding the park will also benefit

from this study. Key stakeholders include park

concessionaires, municipalities such as the city of Page,

Arizona, Native American groups, and friend organizations

engaged in protecting their particular resource of interest.

The study will also inform the wider community of

professionals engaged in cultural and natural resource

protection on both public and private lands as well as those

in academia focused on resource protection research.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Factors That Influence Visitor Behavior at GLCA/RABR

Visitors to the GLCA/RABR face a variety of

restrictions that influence their decision making and

recreational behavior, such as constraints, societal norms,

and community norms. Crawford, Jackson, and Godbey (1991)

proposed a hierarchical model (Figure 2) of constraints for

leisure behaviors composed of three types of leisure

constraints: intrapersonal constraints, interpersonal

constraints, and structural constraints.

Intrapersonal constraints include self-appraisal of

skill level, stress levels, religious beliefs, and

appropriateness of an activity. Interpersonal constraints

result from interpersonal interaction and/or relationships

between individual’s characteristics. Structural constraints

include life stage, financial resources, time availability,

and season (Crawford, Jackson, & Godbey, 1987). According to

this model constraints are resolved in a hierarchical or

sequential manner. Intrapersonal constraints frame leisure

preferences. Once preferences are established an individual

must overcome any interpersonal constraints to engaging in

an activity. Finally, any and all structural constraints

need to be overcome before deciding to participate in any

given activity.

Figure 2. A Hierarchical Constraint Model for Leisure

Behavior.

However, several studies challenged Crawford’s

assertion that each constraint be encountered and resolved

serially before engaging in an activity. A study conducted

by Gilbert and Hudson (2004) found no evidence supporting

the idea that interpersonal constraints are encountered, and

must be overcome, before structural constraints. Chick and

Dong (2004) noted that Crawford’s hierarchical model was

tested primarily in countries with a western culture and may

not be applicable universally. To integrate these findings

into a leisure constraint model Kimm (2009) proposed three

separate models which account for the nature of the society

IntrapersonalConstraints

InterpersonalConstraints

StructuralConstraints

ActivityParticipation

Interpersonal Com patibility &Coordination

LeisurePreferences

Overcom e Overcom e

in which an activity is performed and allowing constraints

to work independently of each other as well

interdependently. From these models he concludes that

leisure constraints can be highly interactive and can

function in complimentary or interdependent ways and can

vary significantly across cultures.

Societal Norms

Societal norms provide an impetus for individuals to

perform, or not perform, specific behaviors in specific

contexts and can be defined as promoting behavior that

benefits the group and prohibiting behavior that harms the

group. The literature describes two main types of norms,

descriptive and injunctive. Descriptive norms are typical

patterns of behavior generally accompanied by the

expectation that people will behave according to the

pattern. Injunctive norms are rules specifying behaviors in

which persons ought (or ought not) to engage. Both

descriptive and injunctive norms are usually communicated

informally and emerge from everyday social interaction,

rather than enforced by the justice system or other formal

authority (Kitts & Chiang, 2008). Norms often include

enforcement as part of their definition. Visitors who

violate norms run the risk of punishment while those who

comply may earn rewards. Punishments can be internal or

informal. Internal punishments are the feelings people have

when they know their behavior has been consistent (pride,

guiltlessness) or inconsistent (guilt, shame) with a

societal obligation. Informal punishments are reactions to

rewards (admiration) or punishments (embarrassment) from

significant others. The social power of any given norm is a

function of the interaction between the expectations about

behavioral standards and/or obligations and the costs or

benefits associated with the behavior. In a study of non-

compliant behavior (littering) in a park setting Heywood and

Murdock (2002) found a high level of obligation to not

litter associated with high expectations of informal

sanctions from significant others. More significantly, the

study also found a strong correlation between the social

obligation not to litter and the observed litter condition

of a park.

Community Norms

Communities play an important role in enforcing

societal norms and can be more effective that regulatory

measures targeting non-compliant behaviors. In a study of

attitudes toward natural resource management practices

Harrington (2008) found that community networks and local

organizations are immensely important for community cohesion

and knowledge transfer, and both individuals and groups can

act as surrogate extension officers and models for better

conservation practices. Community organizations can

facilitate the emergence and maintenance of norms that will

predispose individuals to cooperate while regulation can

work against the emergence of trust and voluntary

cooperative behavior, which have been shown to decline as

state intervention increases (Horne, 2000). In addition,

cooperation that is the result of externally imposed rules

can disappear very quickly (Ostrom, 2000). In a study of

ethical behaviors in the legal profession, Wendel (2001)

found that informal customs and norms held by the legal

community can be as important as legal punishments.

Community norms that motivate individuals to behave in a

certain way are more likely to result in long-term

commitment to desired outcomes (Minato, Curtis, & Allan,

2010).

Community norms create expectations about how people

should act but they need to be maintained by constant

interaction and the knowledge that others are behaving as

expected (Minato, Curtis, & Allan, 2010). Enhancing the

visibility of behaviors that will produce desired outcomes

may be an effective strategy to promote new norms and to

increase the likelihood that non-cooperators will be

punished (Minato, Curtis, & Allan, 2010). Cohesive groups

are more effective in enforcing community norms. Studies

show that in cohesive communities, people express greater

willingness to punish those who engage in deviant behavior

(Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997) and one reason for

higher levels of order in cohesive groups is that deviance

is more likely to be punished in such groups (Homans, 1961).

What Is Community?

MacQueen (2001) defines community as “a group of people

with diverse characteristics who are linked by social ties,

common perspectives, and engage in joint action in

geographical locations or settings” and identifies three

aspects of community as follows:

Table 1. Aspects of Community in Literature.

ASPECTS DESCRIPTION

Community as place. Physical location, workplace, suburb, neighborhood.

Community as social system.

Community networks, social bonds,and interactions between people.

Community as interest-based groups.

Heterogeneous groups of people who share needs, tasks, occupations, struggles, interests, or aspirations.

Of the three aspects listed community as interest-based

groups is the most applicable to this study.

A critical aspect of community is the “sense of

community” defined as “a feeling that members have of

belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and

to the group, and a shared faith that members’ needs will be

met through their commitment to be together (McMillan &

Chavis, 1986). Four elements contribute to a shared sense of

community:

Community membership. Defined by the five dimensionsof boundaries, emotional safety, a sense of identification, personal investment, and a common symbol system.

Influence. A bidirectional attribute where members of the group must feel empowered to have influence over what a group does, and group cohesiveness depends upon the group having some influence over its members.

Integration and need fulfillment. Members of a groupare seen as being rewarded in various ways for theirparticipation.

Shared emotional connection. Characterized by greater personal interaction, quality of the interaction, closure to events, importance of group events, personal investment of group, effect of honor and humiliation on group members, and spiritual bonding.

White and Hendee (2000) found that outdoor and

wilderness settings, such as those found at the

GLCA/RABR, provide excellent opportunities for community

formation in that these environments typically allow for

the formation of shared goals, facilitate sense-making of

personal and community identity, and create communities

that are often reflective of society at large.

Web 2.0-Facilitated Community Engagement

Since the introduction of the first commercial web

browser, NetScape, in 1994 the internet has fundamentally

altered the way in which people communicate with each other,

obtain information, and interact with public and private

organizations. Chang, and Kannan (2008) identified four

types of communities enabled by Web 1.0 technologies. The

first, transaction communities, were limited to textual

interaction among community users, with the community

organizer focused on providing content to users and

controlling the interactions; primarily facilitating the

buying and selling of products and services. Second,

interest-oriented communities evolved to serve specific

communities of interest. Members had significantly higher

degrees of interaction than in a community of transactions,

and the interactions were usually on topics of concern, such

as financial planning and medical conditions. The third type

of community was a fantasy-oriented community where users

role-played. For example, some online applications created

fantasy environments in which groups of users could

interact. The fourth type involved community of

relationships built around certain life experiences that are

usually intense and lead to personal bonding between

members.

The introduction of affordable broadband wireless

technologies untethered internet access and provided access

to information and services independent of location. The

emergence of social networking applications (termed Web 2.0)

enabled the creation of global communities centered on

shared experience and interests. Widespread Web 2.0

technologies include “social networking” applications like

Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, wikis, blogs, video

sharing, and social bookmarking (e.g., Pintrest). Podcasts

available through iTunes and YouTube videos allow

individuals and groups to provide detailed audio and video

information to clients asynchronously, while webcams provide

information in real time, web logs (blogs) allow visitors to

create content relevant to their experiences. Musiał and

Karizonaienko (2009) identified categories of Web 2.0 social

networking communities created to address common interests

including:

1. General interest – Facebook, Friendster2. Dating – Yahoo! Personals, Match.com, eHarmony,

Christian Mingle3. School alumni – Classmates.com4. Professionals – LinkedIn;5. Scientists – SciSpace.net, Epernicus, ResearchGate6. Artists –Taltopia;7. Activists – Care2, WiserEarth;8. Politics – dol2day;9. Fantasy– Elftown;10. Teenagers – Piczo, Faces.com, Habbo;11. Mobile communities – itsmy, MocoSpace12. Religion– MyChurch

13. Customers – Yelp, Inc., Epinions.com;14. Endurance athletes – athlinks.

This is a small sample of the classes of Web 2.0-based

communities existing on the internet. Currently no practical

limit on the nature or size of Web 2.0-based communities

exists and many examples of both very large communities and

what are termed “micro-communities” can be found.

Web 2.0 extended the capabilities of the Web 1.0

infrastructure in the following significant ways:

Users can create and exchange their own content.

Adds the mobility component to the infrastructure allowing content providers to engage end users at the time and place of theirchoosing as well as through the device of theirchoosing.

These factors significantly enhance the content provider’s

ability to engage the end user and create self-sustaining

virtual communities.

The unique characteristics of Web 2.0-enabled

communities results in deeper community engagement in a

variety of ways. Gunawardena, Hermans, Sanchez, Richmond,

Bohley, and Tuttle (2009) proposed a theoretical framework

within which social networking tools can be used for

building online communities of practice. Using a wiki as the

core social networking tool, the authors proposed a six

stage process of collective intelligence development used as

part of the community building process (Figure 2).

Figure 1. The Social Network Spiral.

1. Context. The process of collective intelligence creation in social networking environments begins in context, the context of the site and the context of individuals using the site.

2. Discourse. Discourse shapes community meaning. A common culture is formed as participants bring their life experience, knowledge, and insights to the group through discourse.

3. Action. The process of developing socially-mediated cognition. For example, community membersidentify a goal and through social media tool use connect with others that share the goal.

4. Reflection. The interaction of personal experienceand group thinking. This phase focuses on the consideration and integration of unfamiliar pointsof view.

5. Reorganization. A process through which community members adjust meanings and content within the social networking environment characterized by thesynthesis of historic and novel perspectives.

6. Socially mediated metacognition. A level of community understanding arrived at by offering one’s thoughts to others for inspection, and acting as a critic of one’s partner’s thinking.

Activity Theory

This study drew upon activity theory to assess the

potential impact of social media applications on cultural

resource protection. The primary characteristics of activity

theory that distinguishes it from other behavioral theories,

such as the theory of planned behavior, is that activity

theory considers an entire work/activity system (including

teams and organizations.) beyond a single actor. Activity

theory attempts to account for environment, history of the

person, culture, motivations, and the complexity of real

life activity that shapes a person’s actions. The unit of

analysis in activity theory is the concept of object-

oriented, collective and culturally mediated human activity,

or activity system (Nardi, 1995). Also, activity theory is

not predictive. Rather, it provides a framework for

identifying all key components of an activity system and the

interdependencies and influences acting on an activity

system. Figure 4 describes a generic activity system in

which two independent subjects or communities are

interacting with a common set of objects.

Figure 4. A Generic Activity Diagram.

Subject Subject

RulesRules Com m unity Com m unityDivisionOf

Labor

DivisionOf

Labor

M ediatingArtifacts

M ediatingArtifactsObject 1

Object 2

The components of an activity system are defined as follows

(Engestrom, 1999):

Object-oriented - the objective of the activity system. Object refers to the objectivity of the reality; items are considered objective according to natural sciences but also have social and cultural properties.

Subject or internalization - actors engaged in theactivities or the traditional notion of mental processes.

Community or externalization - social context; allactors involved in the activity system.

Tools or tool mediation - the artifacts (or concepts) used by actors in the system. Tools influence actor-structure interactions, they change with accumulating experience. In addition to physical shape, the knowledge also evolves. Tools are influenced by culture, and their use is a way for the accumulation and transmission of

social knowledge. Tools influence both the agents and the structure.

Division of labor - social strata, hierarchical structure of activity, the division of activities among actors in the system.

Rules - conventions, guidelines and rules regulating activities in the system

Activity theory recognizes that individual behaviors do

not occur in a vacuum, are dependent upon the context within

which the behaviors occur, and result from an interaction

between the subject performing the activity, the object upon

which an activity is performed, and mediating artifacts

(Engestrom, 1999).

Activity theory intersects the social media spiral at

the action component in that the activities defined and

undertaken using available tools within the various

activity systems result in socially mediated cognition.

Overlaying GCLA/RABR staff and the boater community on

this generic model illustrates the interaction between two

subject communities: park staff and boaters (Figure 5). In

reality, there are many more communities interacting with

the common set of objects, such as the City of Page,

Arizona, boat rental agencies, Native American groups, and

the Bureau of Reclamation. Each would be represented by a

separate triangle in Figure 5. In this diagram, object two

represents the GLCA/RABR resource base as seen from the

perspective of the representative communities.

Figure 5. A Simple GLCA/RABR Activity Diagram.

Park Staff Boaters

NationalPark ServiceNorm s

LegislationPark RulesNPS Rules

M anagem entLaw Enforcem entInterpretationArcheology

ConstraintsSocial Norm s

Law Enforcem entInterpretive Program s

M onitor & Reporting ToolsGLCA ResourcesPark Perspective

GLCA ResourcesBoater Perspective

Park/BoaterPerspectiveOverlap

Park RulesIndividual ConstraintsSocial Norm s

BoatingCom m unityNorm s

ConstraintsSocial Norm s

Park RegulationsLaw Enforcem ent

Signage

OperatorsM arinas

Rental Agencies

From a park staff perspective the resources include the

totality of the GLCA/RABR region including Lake Powell,

geologic features, biological features, paleontological

features, archeological, cultural, and historical features,

and viewscapes. From a boating community perspective the

resources include Lake Powell, lake-related recreational

features, and, to a lesser extent, the broader features

defined by the park staff perspective. One area of overlap

between the two groups is the cultural, archeological, and

historical resources found in the park (object 2). Even

though the two subject groups overlap in this area, each

brings their own perspective to the cultural resource base

found within the park. This particular intersection is the

focal point of this research project.

The activities performed by the park staff are largely

defined by the federal regulations under which they operate

as well as derivative park regulations. The boater community

is constrained by park regulations as well. In addition, the

boater community is constrained by social norms and

individual values which mediate individual activities such

as vandalism, littering, and noise levels.

Mediating tools are those elements which define and/or

constrain the interaction between the subjects (park staff

and boaters) and the objects (GLCA/RABR cultural resources).

NPS regulations and applicable federal legislation guide

park staff activities. For illustrative purposes, tools at

their disposal would include the various monitoring and

reporting tools developed to aide in the fulfillment of NSP

regulations as well as external tools such as the Visitor

Experience Resource Protection (VERP) framework. Boaters, in

turn, are constrained by park rules and regulations as well

as law enforcement. Both the NPS and boater communities are

influenced by specific constraints (intrapersonal,

interpersonal, and structural) as well as societal and

community norms of behavior. Interpretive programming can be

used to alter the constraints and norms that guide group and

individual behaviors within the park. The focus of a Web

2.0-based intervention program would be to engage the key

individual stakeholders and communities as defined within an

activity framework to alter perceptions of acceptable

behavior relative to cultural resources within GLCA/RABR.

Many studies have been conducted to assess the

acceptance of internet technology and applications to

disseminate information to existing and potential clients in

a commercial context. Thackeray, Neiger, Hanson, and

McKensie (2009) assert that Web 2.0 technologies enhance

promotional activities dramatically by engaging the client

directly in the process through content creation and

sharing, networking, and bookmarking. Wright and Hinson

(2008) found that social networking technologies are an

effective compliment to traditional information

dissemination techniques and have changed the way

organizations engage external audiences. Leppaniemi and

Karjalouto (2005) found that consumers were willing to

accept mobile advertising using SMS technology (similar to

Twitter) as long as consumers have a choice (advertising

should allow users to decide whether or not to receive

messages), users remain in control (users could bypass sales

messages easily), users can customize what they receive

(users should be able to filter the messages received), and

there is a mutual benefit (users want to get something

back).

Government agencies at all levels of government have

been quick to adopt Web 2.0 capabilities to improve the

level of service provided to citizens. A survey of the

political entities governing Texas Congressional district

three shows that all maintain an internet presence through

web pages as well as provide collaborative services through

applications such as Facebook and Twitter. Osmo (2008) found

that Web 2.0 technologies can change perceptions of

governmental agencies by making access simpler and user-

friendly as well as making government activities more

transparent, participative, and inclusive. Chang and Kannan

(2008) found that citizens are willing to interact with

government agencies provided that these agencies “meet the

user where they are” and do not require users to seek out

government information portals.

Nonprofit organizations are changing how they

communicate with their stakeholders (Greenberg & MacAulay,

2009). A 2010 study of 409 non-profit organizations found

that 99% used some form of social media including email

(97.8%), Web 2.0 collaborative applications (54.5%), video

sharing (51.1%), and blogs (48.4%) (Curtis, Edwards, Fraser,

Gudelsky, Holmquist, Thornton, & Sweetser, 2010). The

objectives for social media use include fundraising,

relationship cultivation, communication of strategy and

events, press releases, and campaign status as well as

providing real time networking and sharing between

stakeholders (Waters, Burnett, Lamm, & Lucas, 2009).

Like government agencies advocacy groups have

discovered the power of Web 2.0 technologies to facilitate

civic engagement and collective action. The strategic use of

social media applications by these groups fall into four

categories; collaboration via cost-effective broadcast

capabilities, publication through inexpensive content

creation and distribution through e-publishing applications,

mobilization through peer-to-peer decentralized

communications, and observation through image and video

creation and dissemination. (Surman & Reilly, 2003). In a

study of fifty three public advocacy groups, Obar, Zube, and

Lampe (2012) found that social media facilitates engagement

and action by strengthening outreach efforts, enabling

dialogs between the group and its constituents and the

general public, as well as enhancing collective action

efforts through an increased speed and reach of

communication. Robelia, Greenhow, and Burton (2011) found

that participation in a community of like-minded users via

social networking technologies spurred participants to learn

more about environmental issues and pursue mitigation

through personal and public engagement. Social media

technologies are also viewed as a cost effective way to

accomplish more in an era of declining donations.

Social networking applications have seen wide

acceptance in the health care industry. Web 2.0 technologies

have enabled a patient driven healthcare model where

patients engage physicians directly concerning aspects of

their healthcare regime, research disease processes and

treatment options directly, maintain their own healthcare

records, and engage with emotional support and information

exchange groups (Swan, 2009). A 2010 study found that over

700 of the nation’s hospitals have a social media and social

networking presence to enhance their ability to market

services and communicate to stakeholders (Deloitte, 2010).

60% of surveyed physicians and 65 % of surveyed nurses

expressed interest in using social networks for professional

purposes.

The tourism industry has embraced Web 2.0 applications

both as a means of information dissemination and monitoring

visitor attitudes towards and evaluations of tourism

locations. Web 2.0 technologies enable Internet users to

become the co-producers, the co-designers, the co-marketers

and the co-distributors of tourism experiences and services

(Sigala, 2007). They do this by formulating and posting

opinions on hotels, travel destinations, tourist service

organizers and agents and participating in discussion on

tourism-related issues. (Kopera, 2009). Thevenot (2007)

notes the importance of blogging in the tourism industry as

a way to engage clients directly, disseminate promotional

information, take and respond to customer feedback, and

respond to negative comments. In a study conducted in 2011

at various park locations in and around San Francisco,

California, Knackmuhs (2011) found that social media

applications had the potential to impact interpretive

outcomes and place attachment.

Recognizing of the importance of establishing a

presence on the internet, the GLCA/RABR maintains a web site

tied the National Park Service’s main web site that provides

basic, standardized information about the area. While

GLCA/RABR does maintain a presence on Facebook and YouTube,

the park does not maintain a presence on collaborative

social networking sites such Twitter. As a result, the park

can be said to maintain a passive posture regarding visitor

engagement; relying on visitors to initiate contact with the

park.

Many other individuals and organizations have

established Web 2.0-based sites focused on the GLCA/RABR

area, providing general information, feedback on the area

and available activities, serving as public sites for

advocacy groups, commercial sites for area businesses, and

providing a forum for GLCA/RABR visitors. Some of the sites

include:

Glen Canyon Institute, whose mission is to restore a healthy Colorado River through GlenCanyon and the Grand Canyon.

The Glen Canyon Natural History Association, whose mission is to support and fund education, research, interpretation, and visitor services within the public lands on the Colorado Plateau.

Glen Canyon Dam Dismantlers, whose mission isto remove Glen Canyon dam entirely to restorethe free flow of the Colorado River through Glen Canyon and The Grand Canyon.

Wayne's Words, a bulletin board focusing on GLCA/RABR area allowing users to exchange information, ask questions, and offer items for sale.

National Park Service Perspective

Recent NPS activities reinforce the importance of

improving the technology infrastructure for park

concessionaires and visitors. In September of 2012 the

National Park Hospitality Association (NPHA) petitioned the

Director of the National Park Service to issue a Director’s

Order defining a clear national strategy on cell and

internet connectivity in parks. In response, the NPS

proposed a pilot effort in five parks to evaluate the

efficacy of the following goals (National Park Hospitality

Association, 2012):

Provide a basic level of non-fee internet access at all major, developed visitor areas in the national park system.

Provide basic cell phone service at all majorvisitor areas in national park units, as well

as along most roads and at major sites such as trailheads.

Deliver timely, park-focused information within national parks through smart phones, tablets and computers.

Give individual parks discretion on where cell phone service is available, and whether the service provides full or emergency-only service.

Identify and employ best available and practical technologies that minimize visual impacts of cell and internet access systems.

Create special gateway zones at park entry points using downloadable data to replace both low-power radio systems and printed material hand-outs.

Design a system that is financially sustainable, generating revenues adequate to install, maintain and upgrade internet access. To do this, concessioners are offeredthe opportunity to develop and operate these systems, either individually or through a collaborative venture with other concessioners.

Offer additional bandwidth where possible to park visitors on a fee basis.

Coordinate efforts of the NPS, concessioners and friend organizations to create official park apps which can be readily downloaded to all major mobile channels, and which work to

aid park visits, even when not connected to the internet, through GPS and other technologies.

In 2012 the Technology Subcommittee of the National

Park System Advisory drafted a white paper focused on the

existing and aspirational use of technology within the

national park system to provide virtual services to park

visitors (National Park System Advisory Board Education

Committee, 2012). The study sought to answer three

questions:

What is the current state of technology within NPS?

What should be the basic virtual services for NPS?

What should be the NPS’s aspirations virtual services?

The purpose of the study was to inform park management on

technology-enabled visitor services that can:

Deepen and extend place-based learning.

Give voice to diverse communities and perspectives.

Provide many paths to access the park experience.

Deepen personal connections and connectivity.

Visualize abstract concepts.

At the conclusion of the white paper, the authors

recommend a suite of baseline and aspirational services to

be considered for implementation within the national parks.

The baseline capabilities include:

Partial WIFI/cell phone access in parks.

Leverage technology NPS already has e.g., webpages, Facebook pages.

Every project planned with mobile in mind.

Employee professional development opportunities via and regarding tech.

NPS maintain analytics and report out on techuse.

Encourage the use of the new educational portal.

Designated Tweeting/social media Park Ranger (shared between parks)

Communication by NPS of technology resources to general public.

Aspirational capabilities recommended by the authors

include:

Develop NPS mobile learning strategy.

Develop an exemplar of mobile technology tools for learning.

Stimulate thematic collaboration across parks.

Support technology development.

Develop a framework for emerging technologiesfor learning.

Deploy technology that supports large-scale data collection from park users.

METHODOLOGY

For this study I chose to take a mixed method approach

using two research techniques; netnography and telephone

interviews. The netnographic element of the study involved a

detailed investigation of the social media use of 23 NPS

parks. I selected the study sites based on three criteria;

the presence of cultural resources, the presence of

archeological resources, and the presence of recreational

water within the park. While the main focus was on national

recreation areas, I also included national parks and

national historical parks in the study to broaden the scope

of responses. The netnographic process involved visiting the

NPS home page and the various social media applications used

by each park, including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Fickr,

YouTube, Tumblr, and Pinterest. For Facebook I collected the

page inception date and the number of “likes”. For twitter I

collected the page inception date, the number of followers,

and the number of tweets sent by the park. For Instagram,

Flickr, YouTube, Tumblr, and Pinterest I collected a simple

yes or no if the site contained any reference to the park

under study. If the park’s NPS home page did not contain a

link to Facebook or Twitter, I used my personal Facebook and

Twitter home page to search for the parks under study using

the embedded search features. If the search was successful,

I navigated from the search results to the Facebook and

Twitter pages to collect the information. I used the search

functions embedded in Instagram, Flickr, YouTube, Tumblr,

and Pinterest to determine if any content referencing the

park in question was present.

With the guidance of the Cultural Resource Program

Manager at GCLA/RABR, I compiled a list of potential parks

to conduct interviews. From this list I selected two initial

sites to conduct interviews, Amistad NRA (AMIS) and Bighorn

Canyon NRA (BICA). Both sites contain extensive cultural or

archeological resources and recreational water that sustains

heavy use. I identified the potential respondents by

contacting the park superintendent at each of the two parks

using email. I identified myself and the purpose of my

communication and study and asked for the superintendent’s

recommendations for interviewees. In response I received

either a direct response from the superintendent or a

response from the staff member designated for an interview.

I conducted the interviews via telephone. If more than one

respondent was present at the park I used speakerphone

technology so all respondents could be a part of the

conversation at the same time. In one case the respondents

were in different locations. In this case I used

teleconferencing technology to join all parties in the

conversation. At the end of each interview I asked each

respondent to recommend additional parks and or people to

interview. Based on their feedback I selected an additional

five parks to contact which resulted in an additional seven

respondents using the same process described above.

The Netnographic Study Element

Kozinets (2002) defines netnography as “an interpretive

method devised specifically to investigate the behaviors of

cultures an communities present on the internet”.

Netnography provides a structured approach (Table 2) to the

study of complex internet-based interactions between

communities and individuals within communities.

Table 2. The Netnographic Research Process.

Using

purposeful

sampling

techniques I

identified 22

sites for

netnographic

RESEARCH ELEMENT DESCRIPTIONResearch Planning Problem Definition

Research objectivesResearch questions

EntréeEntry into the communityGetting to know the players

Data Collection ArchivedElicitedField notes

Data AnalysisConstruct classification systemCodingSynthesis and contextualization

study (Table 3) that met a minimum of two of the three

following criteria:

Presence of cultural resource sites. Presence of archeological sites. Presence of recreational water features.

In addition to the 14 sites that met all three

selection criteria, I included eight sites that that did not

meet at least one of the criteria in order to expand the

coverage to potentially capture additional relevant

practices. To increase the breadth of parks sampled I

included national parks, national recreation areas, and

national historic parks in the sample.

Table 3. Sites Selected for Netnographic Study.

NPS SITE CATEGORY CULTURALSITES

ARCHEOLOGICALSITES

RECREATIONALWATER

Grand Teton NP Y Y Y

Bighorn Canyon NRA Y Y Y

North Cascades Cluster NP Y Y Y

Amistad NRA Y Y Y

Golden Gate NRA Y Y Y

Delaware Water Gap NRA Y Y Y

Glen Canyon NRA Y Y Y

Great Basin NP Y Y Y

Jean Lafitte NHP Y N Y

Big South Fork NRA Y N Y

Chattahoochee River NRA N N Y

Lake Mead NRA N N Y

Lake Roosevelt NRA Y Y Y

Mississippi NRA Y Y Y

Missouri NRA Y Y Y

Santa Monica Mountains NRA Y Y N

Upper Delaware NRA Y Y Y

Whiskeytown NRA N N Y

Chickasaw NRA Y Y Y

NPS SITE CATEGORY CULTURALSITES

ARCHEOLOGICALSITES

RECREATIONALWATER

Gateway NRA Y N Y

Curecanti NRA Y Y Y

Lake Meredith NRA Y Y Y

Gauley River NRA Y N Y

Netnographic Data Collection Process Detail

For each site selected for netnographic study I

collected the data listed in Table 4.

Table 4. Data Elements Collected By Application Type.

APPLICATION DATA ELEMENTFacebook Date page created, number of likes,

number of extended community members.Twitter Date page created, number of followers,

number of tweets

Instagram Yes/No

Flickr Yes/No

YouTube Yes/No

Tumblr Yes/No

Pinterest Yes/No

The data collection process began with a visit to the

Web 1.0 park home page hosted on the NPS servers. Once on

the page I checked for the presence of a park-specific link

to a social media page maintained by the park (Figure 4).

Figure 2. Links to Social Media Applications from Park NPS Home Page.

If a link was present I used the link to navigate to

the park’s social media pages to collect the information

described above (Figure 5).

Figure 3. Data Collection from Park Facebook Page.

In order to collect the inception dates I followed the

site’s Facebook timeline back to the creation date listed on

the timeline or the date of the first Facebook post (Figure

6).

Figure 4. Date of DEWA's First Facebook Post.

If the park’s Web 1.0 homepage did not contain a link

to its social media sites, I used the search functions

embedded in the social media applications to find these

sites. In Figure 7 I used the search function from my

personal Facebook page to find the Facebook site maintained

by AMIS.

Figure 5. Using Facebook Search Function to Locate FacebookSites.

While the mechanics were somewhat different, I used the

same general process for obtaining Twitter data as well.

In order to determine if a park had a presence on sites

like Instagram, Flickr, YouTube, Tumblr, or Pinterest I

conducted a search using the search functions embedded in

each of these applications (Figure 8).

Figure 6. Flickr Search Function Result.

While the mechanics were slightly different, I used the

same process for searching all of the applications listed

above.

Interview Study Element

With the guidance of the Cultural Resource Program

Manager at GCLA/RABR I developed a list of potential sites

to be contacted and interviewed (Appendix A) from which we

selected two initial interview sites using purposeful

sampling techniques. Using snowball sampling I added

additional parks based on recommendations from initial

respondents. In total, I interviewed nine individuals

representing seven NPS sites, including both national parks

and national recreation areas.

During 2014 I conducted in-depth interviews with NPS

park staff directly involved with protecting cultural and/or

archeological resources, interpreting park resources, and/or

involved in the social media activities at the park (Table

5).

Table 5. Interview Respondents.

PARK INTERVIEWEES INTERVIEWDATE

ROLE

Grand Teton NP

2 1/29/2014 Public affairs specialist for strategic communication and social media.Social media editorand Facebook administrator.

BighornCanyon NRA

21

1/18/20142/27/2014

Resource managementleadership.Interpretation leadership.Interpretive staff and social media coordination.

North Cascades NP

1 2/19/2014 Physical and biological sciencesmanagment. Archeological and historic structuresoversight

AmistadNRA

1 2/12/2014 Archeological and cultural resource oversight

Delaware WaterGap NRA

1 4/4/2014 Interpretive Leadership

Golden 1 10/14/201Interpretive staff

Gate NRA

4 Social media coordination

Interview Process Detail

In order to identify the interviewees at each site

selected, I contacted the park superintendent at each park

via email. The text of the email is as follows:

Dear Superintendent,Interpretive Manager, Cultural/Archeological Resource Manager

My name is Chris Ebling and I am a graduate student at Stephen F Austin State University in Nacogdoches Texas. In 2011 the management of the Glen Canyon/Rainbow Bridge NRA engaged a research team to provide managers with a strategy for protection of cultural sites along the shoreline of Lake Powell. The team consists of professorial staff from Stephen F. Austin State University and North Carolina State University as well as both graduate and undergraduate students from Stephen F. Austin State University.

The research team will review and build upon current literature and survey field experts to identifythe most effective methods for protecting cultural sites from adverse or unacceptable impacts. The review will include: (a) an examination of literature specificto visitor/boater impacts to cultural sites located along lakeshores; (b) contact with lakeshore recreationareas, whether federal (like other NPS units) or state,to identify their strategies for site protection; (c) an examination of the value of tactics, such as educational programs; interpretive media; camera surveillance; signage; site closure; the presence of uniformed personnel; and site stewardship programs; (d)an examination of the literature as it relates to boater attitudes and perceptions; and (e) an examination of innovative approaches to protect cultural resources. The final deliverable includes written report that summarizes the results of the literature review and outlines recommendations for the effective protection and management of lakeshore cultural sites at GLCA/RABR.

This primary research project initiated three ancillary research projects focused on specific aspects

of cultural resource protection and recreation use at GLCA/RABR, conducted by graduate students on the research team. The first project will focus on boater relationship with the resource and management. The second will focus on the types of messages that will bemost effective in countering non-compliant behaviors byvisitors. The third will study the potential impact of Web 2.0 wireless technology and social media applications to influence non-compliant visitor behaviors with the objective of reducing damage to cultural and archeological resources within the GLCA/RABR.

My piece of the puzzle is to study the potential impact of Web 2.0 on cultural resource protection. Since your organization is involved directly in this activity I feel that your input is critical to the success of my research. Would your park be willing to participate in a telephone interview focused on this topic?

I look forward to talking to you. If you have any questions please contact me.

I received responses either directly from the park

superintendent or from the staff member designated to

participate in the interview.

After making initial contact with the respondent and

answering any questions they had, the respondent(s) and I

mutually agreed to an interview date and time. At the

prescribed time I contacted the respondent(s) by telephone.

If two respondents were present at the same location, they

employed speakerphone technology to allow multiple

respondents to participate simultaneously. In one instance

the respondents were located in different locations. In this

case we I used teleconferencing technology to bridge the

locations into a single call.

I recorded all of the interviews using a Sony model

ICD-AX412 digital recorder. All recordings were made in

the .mp3 format and transferred to a Dell XPS M1130 laptop

computer for archival and analysis.

Interview Plan

This project leveraged the interview plan developed as

part of the larger research project described in the

introduction section of this document, where possible, by

adding a series of specific questions to the larger

interview plan. Potential interview sites were screened and

prioritized based on the following criteria:

Presence of archeological and/or cultural resources on the property.

Proximity of recreationally-focused water resources to cultural resource sites.

Instances of cultural resource impacts by visitors.

Extent of social media platform use and activity

The potential respondents at the properties included:

1. Staff cultural resource manager.2. Staff archeologist.3. Senior park management.4. Information technology staff.

Interview Questions

The interview questions were designed to obtain

information on the existing technology deployment within a

park, the perceived barriers to additional technology

deployments within the park, and the park manager’s

assessment of how to protect existing archeological

resources within the park from further degradation. The

questions asked of respondents were:

1. Describe the cultural resources at your site.

2. Are you currently experiencing unacceptable impacts to cultural resources at your site? Have you had unacceptable impacts to culturalresources in the past?

3. In general, what is your strategy to minimizethese unacceptable impacts?

4. How do visitors tend to get information aboutpark attractions, resources, rules, regulations and programming at your site?

5. How do you use the web to communicate with audiences about cultural resources at your site?

6. How do you use social media to communicate audiences about cultural resources at your site?

7. Does anything hinder or constrain your ability to do more to reach your audiences through the web or social media?

8. Are there any groups that have formed on the web that focus on your site? Please tell me about these groups…

9. Have any of these groups fostered what you might describe as an “online community”? Please explain your answer…

10. Do you interact with those groups online? Whyor why not?

11. In your opinion, how effective is it to use the web and social media to educate visitors and/or change their behavior? Has your site ever tried to use the web or social media in

this way? Please describe your experience in this area…

12. In your opinion, has the use of the web and/or social media improved visitor compliance with park rules and regulations atyour site?

13. How is information about park-focused online groups used in your park planning efforts?

14. Do you have any goals for using the web or social media to communicate with your audiences about your park in general and/or about your cultural resources?

In addition to the initial questions listed above, I

asked a series of clarifying and probing questions gain

deeper insights. These probing questions included:

In what ways and to what extent where resourcesimpacted?

Can you give any specific examples of social media application use?

What types of research data did you have that demonstrates these trends?

What kind of evidence was available to inform your conclusions about effectiveness?

Data Analysis

Netnographic Data Analysis

The primary focus of the netnographic component of this

study was to understand the communities that have formed

that are centered on the parks selected for study. This

involved studying the linkages that exist between the

community elements (individuals and organizations) and the

interactions between these elements. For Facebook, I

determined the individual members of a park’s Facebook

community as evidenced by the number of “likes” associated

with that page. By “liking” a Facebook page an individual

becomes part of the community and receives posts from the

park automatically, can comment on posts, can post

independently on the park site, and can share posts with

others outside the park’s direct community. For Twitter, I

determined the extent of the park’s community as evidenced

by the number of “followers” associated with the park’s

Twitter feed. Followers receive park tweets automatically,

can respond to tweets directly, and can share park tweets

with others outside the park community by “favoriting” any

given tweet.

I also determined the number of external organizations

that are part of the park’s community. I did this by

documenting the links between the park’s Facebook page and

pages associated with external organizations as evidenced by

number of organizational “likes” present on the park’s

Facebook page (Figure 9).

Figure 7. Linkage Between Park Facebook Page and External Organizations.

Interview Data Analysis

Since the data obtained through interviews was

narrative in nature, I used qualitative analysis techniques

to analyze the data. Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA)

describes a range of processes and procedures whereby

qualitative data evolves into some form of explanation,

understanding, or interpretation of the situation under

investigation (Gibbs & Taylor, 2010). The process of QDA

involves three steps: transcribing, coding, and the

identifying themes.

The transcribing process involved transcribing the

interviews into text that could be analyzed. The coding step

involved looking for themes within the text and applying

labels to them that indicate they are examples of some

thematic idea. This coding process enabled me to retrieve

and collect all the text and other data associated with some

thematic idea so that the data could be examined and

compared. Once encoded, I organized the data using computer-

assisted techniques. For this study I used a QDA application

called MaxQDA

I analyzed these data using framework analysis

techniques (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). Framework analysis

develops a hierarchical thematic framework used to classify

and organize data according to key themes, concepts, and

emergent categories. The framework identified the main

themes and subtopics within the coded data sets. I charted

each (table 5) where each case has its own row and columns

representing the subtopics. Cells contain relevant summaries

from the data set. I used these charts to examine the data

for patterns and connections The final step was to construct

a series of activity diagrams which detail the activity

systems currently present at GLCA/RABR.

RESULTS

Data collected as part of the interview process confirm

that each of the sites in the study incur visitor-caused

impacts to cultural and/or archeological resources to a

varying degree. Each of these sites uses traditional

management tools in an attempt to minimize these impacts.

These tools include deterrence and enforcement activities,

regulation, visitor education programs, and site management

practices such as resource closures.

The parks studied are all using Web 2.0 and social

media applications to a degree, primarily Facebook and

Twitter. Social media use varies from a few initial posts

made at site inception to multiple posts every day. Some

parks proactively answer questions and respond to comments

made by individuals in the community. Other parks do not

monitor their social media pages and, therefore, do not

interact with their social media communities in any

meaningful way.

The parks use social media for a wide variety of

purposes including interpretation, education, visitor

engagement, community outreach, safety and general

information, park status, resource protection, and

activities like photo sharing. However, respondents stated

that they do not have any direct evidence to support the

effectiveness of their social media activities. Through

trial and error they have learned that posts that contain

pictures get the most “likes” and are shared most often on

Facebook. The same holds true for Twitter but to a lesser

extent due to lower Twitter participation rates on the part

of community members.

They also observed that posts focused on resource

protection and regulatory messages seem to get the least

attention, as measured by “likes”, “shares”, and “re-

tweets”. Respondents also stated that they have no way of

demonstrating a positive return on investment related to

their social media programs. This makes further investment

in social media-related activities difficult to justify in

an era of declining budgets.

These data suggests the existence of three distinct

community types centered on the parks studied; intentional

communities, extended intentional communities, and

incidental/ad hoc communities. Intentional communities are

those established and maintained by the Park Service site

for the purpose of interacting with visitors and other

interested parties. Extended intentional communities form

through linkages between the park’s social media page and

other social media sites such as other NPS sites, commercial

enterprises, non-profit enterprises, government agencies,

municipalities, and others. Incidental/ad hoc communities

are communities that form around a park that have not been

formally established by park staff or by other third

parties.

Data Coding Results

As part of the interview analysis process I coded a

total of 452 individual text segments. I then organized

these segments into coding categories, ultimately leading to

the emergence of three broad themes that I will explore in

detail (Table 6).

Table 6. Data Segments, Coding Categories, Concepts, and Themes.

THEMES CONCEPT CODING CATEGORY

NUMBER ofSEGMENTS

Theme 1. Managers actively employed visitor use management strategies andtactics to protect park archeological,cultural, historical, and natural resources.

Cultural Resource Damage

General 32Access to cultural sites

6

Visitor ImpactPrevention Practices

Closure 5Gaming 2Citizen Science

2

Rapid Intervention

2

Restriction 2Education 13Interpretation

6

Enforcement 1Signage 4Monitoring 10School programs

5

Campout programs

1

Theme 2. The parks have begun to use Web 2.0 and social media applications to engage their communities of

Effectiveness General 13Increased visitor viewings

14

Analytics 7Traditional vs. social media

11

Visitor 10

THEMES CONCEPT CODING CATEGORY

NUMBER ofSEGMENTS

interest feedback

Usage Constraints

General 2Geography 6Management support

9

Funding 5Staffing 21Staff Capabilities

5

ROI 2Staff demographics

6

Interdivisional support

3

Technology 6Visitor demographics

9

NPS regulations

12

New feature requests

4

Park Web 2.0 Usage

General 2Overall Strategy

27

Research 4Staff Training

3

Blogs 2Reporting 1Cultural resouce protection

27

Cultural 1

THEMES CONCEPT CODING CATEGORY

NUMBER ofSEGMENTS

resourcesYouTube 12Visitor use locations

1

Applications 1Twitter use 16Podcasts 1Skype 1Photo sharing

6

Flickr 1Facebook use 9Newspaper 1Messaging 1Use of social media

3

Information 7Reporting 3Facebook 7Twitter 2

Theme 3. Internet-basedcommunities ofinterest have formed that are focused onthe park.

Visitor Information Sources

General 1Facebook 3Face to face 2Commercial enterprises

2

Newspaper 1Signage 1Web site 8Gateway communities

1

Visitor Centers

7

Partners 1General 31Partner feedback

5

Non-profit partnerships

8

Commercial enterprises

7

Government 1

Theme one covers the presence of visitor-caused impacts

within a park and the strategies and tactics employed by

park management today to prevent visitor-caused impacts to

park cultural, archeological, and natural resources. Theme

two explores the usage of Web 2.0 technology and social

media applications by the parks in the study. This theme

includes the overall social media strategy, social media

applications employed, the purpose and target audience for

various social media tools. This theme also includes the

constraints encountered by park staff in their use of social

media as well as the perceived effectiveness of these tools.

Theme three probes the perceived ability of social media to

foster communities of interest around a park based on common

interests and social media applications. The community theme

will be explored in detail in conjunction with the

netnographic data with the intent of relating community

formation and interaction to the fundamentals of Activity

Theory.

Theme 1: Managers actively employed visitor use management strategies

and tactics to protect park archeological, cultural, historical, and natural

resources.

All of the respondents noted varying degrees of

visitor-caused impacts to natural and cultural resources

within their parks. Vandalism was a major source of visitor-

caused impacts. Respondents at North Cascades National Park

(NOCA) identified “some vandalism” while respondents at

Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (DEWA) noted the

“defacing” of structures. According to respondents at Golden

Gate National Recreation Area (GOGA), being in an urban

location makes the park particularly vulnerable. Respondents

at GOGA also noted “a fair amount of graffiti, given the

urban population. On Alcatraz Island “some areas of the

buildings [are] getting graffitied [sic] to the point of

doing physical damage in terms of plaster being damaged”.

Theft was noted as another issue by respondents at

NOCA. “There is some evidence that things have walked away

from a small corral sights” and respondents at Bighorn

Canyon National Recreation Area (BICA) noted that “a lot of

surface collecting was done”. Respondents at DEWA noted that

“copper stealing is out of control in this area”.

Boaters are a source of impacts where boating is a

major recreational activity. Respondents at Amistad National

Recreation Area (AMIS) noted that “every major shelter

anywhere along the lake has been hit and in some places hit

pretty bad” and that paleo-Indian sites have been damaged in

areas “only accessible by boat”. BICA noted that access to

their cultural sites is “primarily through boating” and

therefore they concluded that any impacts resulted from

boating community activities.

Strategies and Tactics Used to Address Visitor-Caused

Impacts

The sites interviewed employ a wide variety of

traditional techniques to address unacceptable impacts to

resource conditions, including signage, closure, education,

and interpretive programs. Table 7 highlights some of these

practices.

Table 7. Visitor Use Management Tactics.

TACTIC CATEGORY

TACTIC SITE† RESPONDENT STATEMENTS

Deterrance andEnforcement

Signage GRTE "Physical signage at some sites is very important"

BICA "One whole sign talks about the importance of preserving"

GOGA "We try to do signage where appropriate"

Provide personnel and law enforcement

AMIS If they [law enforcement] notice something that looks out of the ordinary to them they give me a call."

AMIS [I] take them to abunch of rock art sites and try to get them familiar with the area’s archaeology and cultural resources[and] get them excited about it."

DEWA We’ve purchased remote security systems for various high

TACTIC CATEGORY

TACTIC SITE† RESPONDENT STATEMENTS

profile buildings.

DEWA "We have volunteers who do monitoring for us."

GOGA People would take a photograph and then tag it, and send it in to the site so that people could see [the impacts]."

Regulation Access Restriction

AMIS "We do take regular tours there [the rock art sites]."

AMIS "We have a protective fence around the most important best preserved parts ofit [rock art panel]."

GRTE "We actually invite people to walk inside the building. Maybe because we [allow]that they don’t feel the need to go into the other

TACTIC CATEGORY

TACTIC SITE† RESPONDENT STATEMENTS

buildings."

DEWA "But they [visitors] do lessdamage if they’re allowed just to walk in, for some reason."

Site Management

Closure GRTE "The buildings areclosed and locked at night."

GOGA "In some cases we’ve just had to close those areas off unless they’remonitored by a staff member."

BICA "We do a field school in the park, an archeological field school."

BICA [We conduct] ethnographic projects with the different tribal colleges too.

GOGA "[Create a programwith] an educational message in it but

TACTIC CATEGORY

TACTIC SITE† RESPONDENT STATEMENTS

gamify it in a waythat would make itappealing."

GOGA " I think that’s because the kids will bring the adults into it."

DEWQA "Every program hassome sort of protected message.And we try to integrate it into the program"

NOCA "[We] talk to visitors about wilderness ethics,leave-no-trace values or ethics."

†AMIS – Amistad National Recreation AreaDEWA – Delaware Water Gap National Recreation AreaGOGA – Golden Gate National Recreation AreaGRTE – Grand Tetons National ParkNOCA – North Cascades National ParkBICA – Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area

Theme 2: The parks have begun to use Web 2.0 and social media applications to

engage their communities of interest

Today visitors obtain information about the park from a

variety of sources. External to the park these sources

include print media, commercial enterprises, gateway

communities, and park partners. NOCA respondents said that

the park frequently distributes press releases “and hope

that the newspaper finds it interesting” enough to warrant

publication. DEWA respondents said that visitors obtain

information about the park “primarily by third party. It’s

local businesses, it’s word of mouth, and it’s that type of

thing.” Since Jackson Wyoming is a gateway community for

Grand Teton National Park (GRTE), respondents said that a

great deal of information is available “through hotels,

through restaurants, through business in the town”. NOCA

respondents said that they work with a non-profit partner

“that does a lot of outdoors education and so they serve as

an important arm or partner with the park to do education

about the park and provide information”.

Within the park, visitors obtain information through

visitor centers, face-to-face encounters, and the park’s web

site. Visitor center usage can vary considerably depending

on the nature of the park and the purpose of the visit. GRTE

respondents assert that “most of our visitors will visit one

of the visitor centers”. Other third party visitor centers

can augment the park visitor center. For example, NOCA

respondents said that, “[The] power company that manages the

dams, have a small visitor center [that] certainly gives out

park information”.

NOCA respondents said that the park maintains a staff

of “roving rangers in the campgrounds, major campgrounds,

[and] automobile campgrounds giving out information”. At the

same time these respondents noted that “they [visitors] can

go in and actually recreate all day, all week and not even

interact with the ranger or any of our literature”. GRTE

respondents noted that “a large portion of our visitors, or

those that want to visit, visit our website” where “there’s

a great deal of information on how to plan your visit, on

local lodging, on tips for camping”.

All of the sites interviewed made extensive use of Web

1.0 technology. In every instance the site maintained a web

page that conformed to the NPS standard template for look,

feel and information content. As part of this template, all

of the sites contained links to the main NPS Web 1.0 site as

well as to NPS Web 2.0 sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

In cases where the sites maintained a site-specific Web 2.0

presence the pages also included links to these pages. Many

include links to image sharing sites, such as Flickr, video

sites, such as YouTube, and informational sites such as

those providing podcasts.

Social Media Applications Used and Their Strategic Purposes

All of the sites interviewed have adopted Web 2.0

technologies and social media applications to some degree.

GRTE respondents claimed that “all the parks are required to

have a signed social media strategy prior to implementing a

presence on any of the social media sites”. However, the

depth of the strategy varies widely across parks. According

to respondents at DEWA, the strategy is limited to

“send[ing] people back to our website” and “we don’t have a

lot of proactiveness [sic] to really sit down and think

about what we want to do.” Respondents at BICA are trying to

“figure out what our audience really wants and we’re kind of

doing a shotgun approach”. At AMIS respondents noted that

“goals for social media resources would be the same as goals

for any of our other interpretive resources”. On the other

end of the spectrum, GRTE has clear and concise objectives

for their social media program which respondents summarized

as follows:

To attract new and diverse audiences, provide open and engaging platforms for civic engagement, easy and accessible portals to frequently check and change park information,”

“Promote intellectual and emotional connections betweenpark visitors and park stories”, and

“To promote a feeling of ownership among park visitorsby encouraging them to post their own photos or experiences”.

GRTE is also exploring ways to integrate their social

media programs with their traditional programming.

Respondents envisioned using “#envisionthefuture [hashtag]

that people can follow on Facebook or Twitter that [can be]

integrated into hardcopy materials [and] informational

materials in the park”. And while respondents at GRTE are

exploring ways of using “social media to advocate resource

protection when it comes to public engagement and getting

people involved and try to get them to care about planning

efforts”, they “have not used social media tools to advocate

against resource impact in that regard, like very direct

messaging”. BICA addresses resource protection through

traditional leave no trace messaging but respondents claim

that they “haven’t put up much directly about don’t mess

with the park”.

Respondent’s Perception of Constraints Limiting Social MediaApplication

Many factors combine to hinder the widespread

deployment of social media applications within the parks,

but most respondents identified common themes. The first

theme involves the geography of the parks themselves as well

as limitations of the technology deployed. Park properties

often encompass vast areas with highly variable elevations.

As a result, respondents at GRTE noted that wireless data

reception within the park is “pretty spotty down in the

valley” while respondents at NOCA affirmed that “access to

some of the social media would be constrained just by where

you’re at in the park”. Respondents at GOGA acknowledged

“the connectivity issue is a problem” and that “there are

neat tools available, but it only works when you have that

Wi-Fi or that cell connection”. Respondents at BICA noted

that “there’re not many places where you can actually get

cellphone coverage” and within NOCA respondents noted that

“we don’t have any cell towers in the park at all”.

All of the respondents identified funding and/or

staffing as a barrier to widespread deployment and use of

social media applications. Respondents at NOCA noted that”

because of budget cuts, the interpretive side of things have

just taken a hit” and that “information access for the

public has probably taken a bit of a hit because of the

budget difficulties”.

Staffing is a multidimensional issue. The first

dimension involves staff time dedicated to a social media

program. Respondents at DEWA stated that “we’re kind of a

little short staffed” while respondents at AMIS stated that

“[we’re] not sure we have somebody who’s officially tasked

with managing it [social media] yet”. Respondents at NOCA

highlighted “key vacancies in our staff that we need to fill

and plan to fill and with the stated emphasis that at least

part of their time [will be] to ramp back up our outreach

via that means”. The parks employ various strategies to

counter the staffing shortfall. Often this involves sharing

of responsibility between multiple staff members.

Respondents at BICA, for example, stated that “one of our

interpretive rangers does the website and one of them does

Facebook”. Another strategy is to assign staff to social

media outreach on a part time basis. A respondent at BICA

said that “I wear that hat about an hour a day if that” and

responsibility for social media “becomes a collateral duty

and optional duty of managers”. A third strategy is to

rotate responsibility for posting to social media sites

among park functions. According to respondents, GOGA “[uses]

a team approach “to managing their social media presence. At

DEWA, respondents stated that individuals on rotation are

“responsible for going in there [Facebook] at least twice a

day and making sure that no questions have popped up and

responding to those questions”.

Another dimension of the staffing issue involves staff

capabilities vis-à-vis social media applications.

Respondents at NOCA noted that “we’ve done the best we can

with what we have and our limited knowledge”. Staff

demographics is also viewed and an issue. Respondents at

DEWA noted that “we’re kind of the older crowd” and that

“I’m all for the new social media, but it doesn’t mean I can

lead it”. DEWA respondents hoped that new blood will “have

an understanding better than any of us and be able to help

us from that vision of how we can use these different things

to the maximum benefit”. However, new staff presents a new

set of issues. For example, GOGA respondents stated that

“people are a little paranoid about [having] someone’s first

job in the Park Service [involve] tweeting”. GOGA

respondents say that they are addressing this problem by

“broadening out our team” via cross training.

Another common factor identified by the respondents was

the tepid support of social media programs by management.

While there is broad support for interpretation, this

support does not necessarily translate into interpretation

via social media. At DEWA, for example, respondents noted

that the response to a proposal to create a Facebook page

was “good for you; [but] don’t make us do anything with it”.

Respondents at NOCA asserted that, “The superintendent of

Little Bighorn is a social media coordinator [and] while

they’re very interested in social media, and they say it’s

important, and I think they believe it’s important, [I] have

yet to [find] a leader in the organization who is willing to

require their managers to participate” and that “I’ve never

seen one make it a requirement”. Respondents at GOGA claimed

that staff stepped out ahead of management direction and

implemented social media programs on their own, noting that

“some of us out there have a reputation for doing something

and then asking for permission later on if we need to”. GOGA

respondents say that they’ve “just developed a formal policy

even though some of our stuff has been going on for seven or

eight years”. Interdivisional support was cited as an issue

as well. DEWA respondents stated, regarding their social

media implementation, that “right now it’s very much our

perspective” and that they would like to “have time to go

out and go up there and get the latest of what Resource

Management’s doing, what Culture Resources is doing”.

Another constraint in an era of declining budgets is

the inability to articulate a clear return on investment

(ROI) for allocating resources to social media programs.

NOCA respondents noted “I can come to my boss and tell him

exactly what it costs me to do social media, but I will

never to be able to come to my boss and tell them exactly

what their return on investment was”.

Finally, most respondents cited Park Service

regulations and process as a significant barrier. Some of

the problems relate to the technology itself. GRTE

respondents noted that they “can only use platforms that

have been approved by the Department of the Interior”. Often

the interpretive staff wants to try something new that

required technology not on the approved list. DEWA

respondents stated that “it’s a pain in the butt to go

through the processes, especially if it’s not already on the

list”. In order to use unapproved software the staff “have

to ask for an exemption. Then our IT people are so swamped

just getting them to have time to come and load it because

we are not allowed to load it ourselves”.

Respondents also views NPS rules that prevent them from

promoting their sites as a problem. GOGA respondents noted

that “if we could spend money to promote through social

media platforms or advertising that would certainly increase

retention and use but we can’t do that”. GRTE respondents

expanded on this issue, saying “it’s hard because we can’t

provide incentives, we can’t do contests. A lot of those

marketing strategies [shown to work] through research and

data we can’t engage as a government agency. So we are

hamstrung there a bit.”

Respondent’s Perceptions of Social Media Effectiveness

Perceived effectiveness and normalization is the key to

long-term adoption of any technology. Respondents are

skeptical about using social network applications as a

delivery mechanism for protective messages. NOCA respondents

expressed concerns about “the loss of that face-to-face

ability to talk about particular issues” when using social

media for resource protection purposes. They also said that

anecdotally visitors don’t seem to respond to protective or

safety messaging, noting that “on Facebook whatever I’ve

posted on safety doesn’t get a lot of responses”. However,

most respondents believe that social media has “extremely

high potential”.

The problem lies in the inability to demonstrate

effectivity quantitatively, as noted before in the ROI

discussion. Anecdotally, respondents have determined what

types of posts seem to garner the most interest with the

visitor community. NOCA respondents noted that posts

comprised of text only get “buried in people’s feeds in half

an hour because no one, no one likes it or follows it or

shares it”. On the other hand, posts that contain pictures

and/or videos get visitor attention. NOCA respondents said

that “anytime I share a cute furry critter, we go on fire”

and GRTE respondents highlighted a post with “a 15-second

video a couple weeks ago [that] 12,000 people viewed which

was fantastic”. According to GRTE respondents, the key lies

in understanding what your audience wants to see. For

example, “quotes by John Muir or Emerson…[and] photographs

of the mountains [is] what’s more likely to get them to look

at the page and look at the post.” Similarly, [we’re]“trying

to grab their attention long enough that they actually read

the information we put on there”. However, there is no way

of knowing if any given post had an effect on visitor

behaviors. NOCA respondents noted “that’s not to say that

it’s [a post] not leaving an impression and promoting a more

responsible visit to our park the next time they come. It

may be, but I’ll never know”. GRTE respondents asserted that

“there’s really no way to know their behavior was a result

of your positive communication”.

All of the respondents cited a lack of data as a

significant factor limiting their ability to demonstrate the

effectiveness of their social media programs. GRTE

respondents noted that “Facebook collects very generic data

on your page like the number of people who see it a day “.

As a result, NOCA respondents said that “there’s no way for

me to point to [anything] other than activity. The only

thing I can show…was we’ve created this community online,

[and] we’re raising awareness about our park. That’s the

best I can do.” Park staff wants to be able to use

analytical data to assess the success of what they are

trying, to understand “where did we move the needle”.

Facebook Use by Parks Selected for Netnographic Study

I collected all of the netnographic data over an

extended period of time in 2014. Therefore, these data

represent a snapshot of highly volatile data elements at the

time of collection. Of the 22 sites surveyed, only one -

Gateway National Recreation Area (GATE) - did not maintain a

presence on Facebook. Of the sites that did maintain a

Facebook presence, the earliest was created in March of 2009

(Lake Mead National Recreation Area) and the most recent

start up (Lake Meredith National Recreation Area) occurred

in October 2014. Activity levels on park-sponsored Facebook

sites varied widely. On one extreme, GRTE posts at least

once every day. On the other end of the spectrum, AMIS had

not posted a single item since the site’s inception in

August of 2010 at the time of data collection.

The study sites use Facebook for a wide variety of

purposes, including interpretation, education, visitor

engagement, community outreach, safety, responding to

visitor requests, resource protection, resource monitoring,

photo sharing, and general information dissemination. Figure

10 provides an example of a Facebook post used to fulfill an

interpretive function. In this post the park uses a quote by

Olaus Murie, a former director of the Wilderness Society, to

link the wilderness experience to happiness.

Figure 8. An Interpretive Facebook Post.

Figure 11 provides an example of Facebook used to

promote educational outcomes. In this post the park uses the

phenomenon of turquoise glacial lakes to teach the reader

about glacial processes.

Figure 9. An Educational Facebook Post.

Figure 12 provides an example of Facebook used to

engage the visitor community. In this post the park invites

visitors to participate in a photography contest designed to

highlight the lesser known features of GRTE. The winner was

to be decided by votes from the larger community.

Figure 10. Facebook Used for Visitor Engagement.

Figure 13 provides an example of Facebook used to reach

out to the community. In this post the park invites the

community to view the videos created by a local high school

in response to the 50th anniversary of the wilderness act.

Figure 11. Facebook Used to Reach Out to the Community.

Figure 14 provides an example of Facebook used reach

out to an underserved audience. In this post the park

highlights the efforts of a national Latino organization to

involve their community in the park experience. In it the

park provides a link to the activities of the group.

Figure 12. Facebook Used for Outreach to Underserved Audiences.

Figure 15 provides an example of Facebook used to

provide general information and promote visitor safety. In

this case the park uses a post to inform visitors of road

closures and warn of dangerous road conditions.

Figure 13. Facebook Used to Provide General Information andPromote Safety.

Figure 16 provides an example of Facebook used to

promote resource protection. This post is significant in

that it demonstrates an attempt use social media to raise

awareness of visitor-caused impacts to resource conditions.

In this post the park points out impacts occurring in the

Jenny Lake area of GRTE and highlights a partnership to

rectify the situation.

Figure 14. Facebook Used to Publicize Resource Protection Efforts.

Figure 17 provides an example of a Facebook post used

to foster resource protective attitudes and behavior. As in

Figure 16, this post is significant for its focus on

resource protection. However, while Figure 16 calls

attention to a specific situation, Figure 17 attempts to

raise awareness of resource protection concepts (e.g.,

ensuring that wilderness remains “untrammeled”) by invoking

a tenet of the Wilderness Act.

Figure 15. Facebook Used to Foster Resource Protective Attitudes and Behavior.

Figure 18 provides an example of Facebook used to

promote photo sharing. In this case a recent visitor from

Australia posted a photo to the GRTE Facebook page along

with a statement of his appreciation of the viewscape.

Figure 16. Facebook Used to Promote Photo Sharing.

Twitter Use by Parks Selected for Netnographic Study

All of the netnographic data was collected over an

extended period of time in 2014. Therefore, these data

represent a snapshot of highly volatile data elements at the

time of collection. Of the 23 sites surveyed, six parks did

not maintain a presence on Twitter. Of those that did

maintain a Twitter presence, the earliest was created in

September of 2008 (Lake Mead NRA) and the most recent

addition (Gauley River NRA) happened in May of 2013. Like

Facebook, use of Twitter varied widely across parks, as

measured by the number of tweets posted and the number of

followers generated. The number of followers for active

twitter accounts ranged from a high of 21,200 (GRTE) to a

low of 614 (AMIS), possibly reflecting differing levels of

social media activity between the two sites or differing

levels of overall public interest. The number of tweets sent

by parks ranged from a high of 4,048 (GATE) and a low of 1

(AMIS). The parks used Twitter for a variety of purposes,

some of which overlap with Facebook and some of which are

unique to Twitter. These purposes include interpretation,

education, community outreach, event announcements, park

status announcements, general and safety information, and

visitor engagement. Unlike Facebook, a Twitter post is

limited to 144 characters. This forces users to send short

messages and/or provide URL links to more extensive content.

Figure 19 shows Twitter being used to provide audiences

with an interpretive opportunity. In this instance the tweet

is accompanied by an interpretive video.

Figure 17. Twitter Used to Provide Interpretive Opportunities.

Figure 20 provides an example of Twitter being used for

educational purposes. In this case the park forwarded a

message from the Grand Teton Foundation highlighting

research which links children’s well-being to contact with

nature.

Figure 18. Twitter Used to Promote Educational Outcomes.

Figure 21 provides an example of Twitter being used to

engage in outreach to underserved audiences. In this message

the park provides a picture of underserved youth enjoying

the park along with links to relevant Twitter feeds and a

website.

Figure 19. Twitter Used to Engage in Outreach to Underserved Audiences.

Figure 22 provides an example of Twitter being used to

announce an event, in this case a guided trail hike. This

tweet also provides an example of community outreach in that

the target of the tweet is the local community.

Figure 20. Twitter Used to Announce an Event.

Figure 23 provides an example of Twitter being used to

convey general information. In this tweet the park informs

potential visitors that a facility within the park has

closed for the winter season.

Figure 21. Twitter Used to Convey General Information.

Figure 24 provides an example of Twitter being used to

convey safety information. In this case the Tweet informs

visitors of road closures.

Figure 22. Twitter Used to Convey Safety Information.

Figure 25 provides an example of Twitter used to engage

visitors directly. In this tweet the park asks visitors to

link the park to pictures they have taken (i.e., tagging).

The tweet also provides a link to an image posted to

Instagram by a previous visitor. This tweet is significant

in that it provides an example of park staff monitoring and

engaging the incidental/ad hoc community. It should also be

noted that the tweet thanks a visitor “by name” for sharing

their park photo on Instagram.

Figure 23. Twitter Used to Engage Visitors Directly.

Park Use of Social Media to Engage Visitors in MonitoringPrograms

Social media applications have shown potential to

engage visitors in citizen science and resource monitoring

activities. According to respondents at GOGA the park

conducted a “bio-blitz in conjunction with National

Geographic. There was an application that they used during

[the event] where people would take a photograph and then

tag it. [They would then] send it in to [our] site so that

people could see that [this plant is] not a native to that

area”. Respondents claim that GOGA plans to continue to

investigate this potential by looking “at how people are

using different things on their mobile devices, and trying

to get them to use them in a positive way”. GRTE encourages

visitors to participate in their program to monitor invasive

mountain goats by taking a picture of any goats they see and

sending the picture to park social media sites. Since every

picture is time and location tagged, park staff can get a

better idea of where the goats are in the park. Figure 26

illustrates this use of Facebook, inviting visitors to

participate in the GRTE goat monitoring project to track the

dispersal of invasive mountain goats throughout the park.

Figure 24. Monitoring Program Invitation.

Visitors have also taken the initiative to monitor park

resources via social media on their own. For example, Figure

27 shows an instance where a visitor caught another visitor

in some questionable activity within GRTE. The post

highlights the willingness of visitors to participate in

monitoring programs, and even report instances of observed

noncompliant behavior, without park instigation.

Figure 25. Visitor Resource Monitoring Facebook Post.

To a lesser extent, parks post to other social media

sites such as Instagram for the purpose of image sharing

(Table 10). Figure 28 provides an example of an Instagram

post and Figure 29 provides an example of a Flickr post.

Figure 26. Instagram Post Showing a Mountain Goat.

Figure 27. Flickr Post Showing Seasonal Staff.

Theme 3: Internet-based communities of interest have formed that are focused

on the parks.

The primary difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0

technologies is that Web 2.0 functions in a much more

interactive manner, allowing users to create and share their

own content. The ability to create and share content, in

turn, fosters the development of communities centered on

common interests. The thrust of this study is to identify

the communities that have formed around selected study

sites, and to understand if these communities can be

influenced, via social media, to adopt resource protective

attitudes and behaviors especially regardint cultural

resources within NPS sites. This section will draw heavily

on data collected as part of the netnography study augmented

with data collected from respondents.

Analysis of the netnographic data suggests the presence

of three distinct communities focused on the parks;

intentional, extended intentional, and incidental/ad hoc.

Intentional Community

I define intentional communities as those established and

maintained by the Park Service site for the purpose of

interacting with visitors and other interested parties.

Today intentional communities are focused primarily on

Facebook and Twitter and, in a few instances, Instagram and

Flickr. The key characteristic of the intentional community

is the ongoing interaction between park staff and interested

parties.

Table 8 identifies and provides details on the

intentional communities established and maintained by the

study sites.

Table 8. Sites Mapped to Intentional Community.

NPS SITE INTENTIONAL (DIRECTED) COMMUNITYFACEBOOK TWITTER

CREATED LIKES CREATED TWEETS FOLLOWERSGrand Teton

5/22/2010

248,570

Jun-09 788

21,200

Bighorn Canyon

11/4/2009

3,628

Dec-09 2,138

1,639

North Cascades Cluster

8/16/2010

7,072

Sep-10 488

4,792

Amistad 8/16/2010

103

Jul-09 1

614

Golden Gate

8/16/2010

4,804

Jul-09 2,146

6,850

Delaware Water Gap

7/5/2011

5,182

Jul-11 233

1,634

Glen Canyon

7/17/2010

8,231

N/A N/A N/A

Great Basin

4/10/2010

180

Feb-11 314

3,963

Jean Lafitte

8/20/2012

1,712

Aug-02 1,831

1,442

Big South Fork

2/18/2011

3,079

Nov-10 1,387

2,817

Chattahoochee River

Jun-11 3,885

Jun-12 948

1,695

Lake Mead Mar-09 5,059

Sep-08 2,920

5,398

NPS SITE INTENTIONAL (DIRECTED) COMMUNITYFACEBOOK TWITTER

CREATED LIKES CREATED TWEETS FOLLOWERS

Lake Roosevelt

9/22/2011

1,413

Sep-11 55

849

Mississippi

2010 162

N/A N/A N/A

Missouri May-11 905

Dec-11 431

1,529

Santa Monica Mountains

Dec-09 12,072

N/A N/A N/A

Upper Delaware

Jun-12 1,032

N/A N/A N/A

Whiskeytown

Aug-12 1,343

N/A N/A N/A

Chickasaw Nov-10 3,259

Jan-11 183

2,880

Gateway N/A N/A Jun-09 4,048

4,309

Curecanti Nov-12 2,032

Aug-09 529

2,684

Lake Meredith

Oct-14 483

N/A N/A N/A

Gauley River

Jul-11 5,515

May-13 423

1,248

From a Facebook perspective becoming an intentional

community member involves “liking” the park’s Facebook page.

From that point forward the community member receives posts

made by Park Service staff automatically and can see posts

made by the broader community. By “liking” posts the

community member shares the posts with those within the park

site community and with those who are a part of the member’s

extended community.

Figure 30 shows a typical Facebook page for a NPS site,

in this case for NOCA. This home page contains key

information about the site including how many people are

members of the intentional committee (number of “likes”),

the category of the site (national park), and a short

description of the park itself. Links from the home page can

take the park’s timeline, (which contains all of the posts

made since inception), photo galleries, and reviews of the

park. A prospective community member is invited to “like”

the page thereby joining the community as well as send

messages to park staff directly.

Figure 28. NOCA Facebook Community Page.

Figure 31 shows a typical Facebook posting with like, share,and comment indicators highlighted in red.

Figure 29. A Typical Facebook Posting.

Figure 32 shows Facebook postings to the community pagefrom external community members.

Figure 30. Facebook Posting from External Community Members.

Figure 33 shows Facebook picture sharing from external community members.

Figure 31. Facebook Picture Sharing.

From a Twitter perspective this interaction begins with

following the park’s Twitter feed and becoming a member of

the community. As a member he/she can tweet messages posted

by the park, can “favorite” and/or re-tweet the original

message. Re-tweeting shares the tweet with others, including

others potentially outside of the primary community. Figure

34 shows the Twitter community page from BICA. As was the

case with the Facebook community homepage, the Twitter

community home page contains key information about the

community. The community member can see the number of people

in the community (number of followers), how many tweets the

park staff have sent out to the community, a short

description of the park itself, and links to the complete

community twitter stream and to other media elements posted

by the community.

Figure 32. BICA Twitter Community Page.

Extended Intentional Community

I define extended intentional community as community formed

through linkages—often bi-directional—between the park’s

social media pages and social media sites maintained by

other organizations. These external sites can be other NPS

sites, commercial enterprises, non-profit enterprises,

government agencies, municipalities, and others.

Table 9 shows the number of members in a site’s

extended community.

Table 9. Number of Sites in Extended Community.

PARK EXTENDEDCOMMUNITY

Grand Teton 22

Bighorn Canyon 43

North Cascades Cluster 68

Amistad 0

Golden Gate 99

Delaware Water Gap 93

Glen Canyon 50

Great Basin 0

Jean Lafitte 20

Big South Fork 2

Chattahoochee River 61

Lake Mead 195

Lake Roosevelt 26

Mississippi 0

Missouri 93

Santa Monica Mountains 74

Upper Delaware 101

Whiskeytown 89

Chickasaw 37

Gateway N

Curecanti 98

Lake Meredith 5

Gauley River 46

Figure 35 shows a subset of the linkages between GRTE’s

Facebook page and members of the site’s extended community.

Figure 33. GRTE Extended Community linkages.

Incidental/Ad Hoc Community

I define incidental/ad hoc communities as communities that

form around a park that have not been formally established

by park staff or by other third parties.

Table 10 identifies whether or not a site is the focus

of incidental/ad hoc communities.

Table 10. Sites Mapped to Incidental/Ad Hoc Community.

INCIDENTAL/AD HOC COMMUNITYNPS SITE FLICKR YOUTUBE TUMBLR INSTAGRAM PINTERES

TGrand Teton Y Y Y Y Y

Bighorn Canyon Y Y Y N Y

North Cascades Cluster Y Y Y Y Y

Amistad Y N Y N Y

Golden Gate Y Y Y Y Y

Delaware Water Gap Y Y Y N Y

Glen Canyon Y Y Y Y Y

Great Basin Y Y Y Y Y

Jean Lafitte Y Y Y N Y

Big South Fork Y Y Y Y Y

Chattahoochee River Y Y Y Y Y

Lake Mead Y Y Y Y Y

INCIDENTAL/AD HOC COMMUNITYNPS SITE FLICKR YOUTUBE TUMBLR INSTAGRAM PINTERES

TLake Roosevelt Y Y N N N

Mississippi Y Y N N Y

Missouri N Y N N N

Santa Monica Mountains Y Y N N Y

Upper Delaware Y Y N N Y

Whiskeytown Y Y Y N Y

Chickasaw Y Y Y N Y

Gateway Y Y Y Y Y

Curecanti Y Y Y N Y

Lake Meredith Y Y Y N Y

Gauley River Y Y Y Y Y

These communities are loosely defined in that the

organizing factor of these communities is often based on the

interests of the community members, the focus of the

interests, and the applications used to share community

content. The potential for community exists where these

three elements intersect (Figure 36). The graphic shows two

individuals defined within the context of interest, focus,

and application. In this example the shared interest is in

photography, the shared focus of this interest is in AMIS,

and the application used to share the results of the

interest and focus areas is Instagram. The potential for

community exists where the interest, focus, and application

dimensions of the two individuals overlap.

Figure 34. Incidental/Ad Hoc Community Structure.

Interest

Focus

Application(Photography) (Instagram )

Interest Application(Photography)

(Am istad NRA)

(Instagram )

(Am istad)

Focus

Incidental Com m unity

Individual 1

Individual 2

Additional examples of incidental/ad hoc communities

could include individuals who share images of a site via a

photo sharing applications such as Instagram and Flickr,

video sharing applications such as YouTube, blogging

applications such as those housed by Tumblr, and visual

discovery applications such as Pinterest. Figure 37 shows an

example of an image sharing community. In this case the

interest is photography, the focus on the interest is BICA,

and the application used to share the result of the interest

and focus in Flickr.

Figure 35. Flickr Image Sharing Community.

Each of these images was taken and posted by a different

member of the community. The image in the lower right corner

is a video.

Figure 38 shows an example of a video sharing community

via YouTube. In this example the members share an interest

in videography, have focused this interest on AMIS, and are

using YouTube to share the results of this interest and

focus.

Figure 36. YouTube Video Sharing Community.

Figure 39 shows an example of a discovery community. In

this example the interest is in sharing places for others to

discover, the focus is NOCA, and the application is

Pinterest.

Figure 37. Pinterest Discovery Application.

Figure 40 shows an example of a blogging community. In

this example the interest is in writing about experiences,

the focus of the interest is GRTE, and the application

linking readers to blogs is Tumblr.

Figure 38. Tumblr Blogging Community.

Today intentional community building via social media

is not a significant focus of the sites interviewed,

especially as community building relates to the visitor

community. The major community building activities that do

take place typically involve park partners.

Partners are important components of the park ecosystem

and form the basis for a loose community structure.

Respondents at DEWA note “partners that of course are very

focused on us because they have an environmental education

center located within the boundaries of the park”.

Respondents at NOCA highlighted Seattle City Light which is

involved in “everything from researching the park to

resource management, wildlife monitoring as well as some of

this outdoor education”. Respondents at DEWA highlighted the

Appalachian Mountain Club, a volunteer organization that

“comes out and volunteers to work on trails”.

Interactions between the parks and their partners tend

to occur using traditional methods, such as face to face

meetings, rather than through social media applications. For

example, Respondents at GRTE noted that “we don’t often

directly interact with them {via social media}. They will

share information, share a video or photo, they will re-

tweet something or we will re-tweet something of theirs

that’s cool but there’s not a lot of direct back and forth”.

Respondents at DEWA stated that “we have formal annual

meetings” with the partners. Respondents at BICA stated that

interactions with partners are “more in person than online

and we’re more likely to go to their meetings or something

than do something online with them”. Respondents at NOCA

stated that they meet frequently with their partners but the

interactions tend to be on “on an as-needed basis”.

Respondents at NOCA highlighted the Little Horn friends

group that supports the park by “putting up markers and

memorials and funding teacher rangers” and that they

participate in “regular meetings with their board, which

typically [the] superintendent or chief of interpretation

attend”.

However, the parks have noticed the formation of

communities focused on their sites. For example, respondents

at GRTE observed that “a lot of our partners link to our

social media sites now, not just our website”. Respondents

at BICA stated that the “Pryor Mountain Wild Horse groups…

tend to follow us on Facebook”. The parks are beginning to

understand the importance of community building to their

social media programs as well. Respondents at AMIS asserted

that “you have to find something that motivates people to

want to follow your feed, your, your Facebook page, you

know, your YouTube channel or whatever. Um, you have to find

a way, and you just, you have to build a community before

any of those tools will be effective at doing anything.”

DISCUSSION

The focus of this study was to evaluate the potential

of social media programs to foster protective behaviors

towards cultural resources in communities focused on parks

within the national park system. The netnographic research

showed that communities have formed focused on the parks

studied. I have characterized these communities as intentional

communities, extended intentional communities, and incidental or ad hoc

communities. Activity Theory provides an excellent framework

for describing these communities and characterizing the

interactions between activity elements.

Intentional Community

Intentional communities are those established and

maintained by Park Service staff. The mediating artifacts

(social media applications) used are both Facebook and

Twitter and, to a much lesser extent, Instagram and YouTube.

Using the activity diagram as a template, Figure 41

graphically describes the structure of an intentional

community.

Figure 39. Intentional Community Structure.

Objects in green are in the Park Service domain.

Objects in blue are in the external community domain. Solid

lines indicate continuous flow. Dotted lines indicate one-

time events. Line thickness indicates relative volume of

traffic between the objects. The black triangles reflect the

interactions between objects in the activity theory model.

The items in gray are included for completeness but are not

part of the study. This convention also applies to Figures

42 and 43.

The focus of the activity is the NPS site which is

acted upon by both park staff and external interested

parties. The artifacts that mediate the activity, Facebook

and Twitter, were created by and maintained by the Park

Service staff. Park Service staff “post” and “tweet” images,

text, video, and audio to the external communities using the

mediating artifacts. Using the same mediating artifacts, the

external communities receive and act upon the content. In

the case of Facebook the options include “liking” and/or

“sharing” the post and responding to the post. The act of

“liking” or “sharing” a post has a multiplying effect in

that this action makes the post available to other

communities external to the intentional community. This

entire interaction is contingent upon the singular event of

an external entity “liking” the Facebook page associated

with the park and, thereby, subscribing to content posted by

the park.

In the case of Twitter the options include

“favoriting”, “re-tweeting”, or responding to the content.

Like Facebook, the act of “favoriting”, “re-tweeting”, or

responding to the content has a multiplying effect that

makes the content available to other communities outside of

the intentional community.

Extended Intentional Community

Extended intentional communities result from Park

Service staff linking their Facebook page to pages created

by other entities. These entities may include other

communities, non-profit organizations, commercial concerns,

and local, state, and national government organizations.

Figure 42 graphically describes an extended intentional

community.

Figure 40. Extended Intentional Community.

The extended intentional community comes into being

through the simple act of “liking”, and thereby linking, two

Facebook pages. The primary differentiator between the

intentional community and the extended intentional community

is that entities within the extended community universe may

not receive content posted by entities in the intentional

community automatically. Like the intentional community,

linking to other pages in the extended community yields a

multiplying effect. Figure 42 demonstrates this effect by

tracing a single path through the extended community. In

this case, the park’s Facebook page links to a first tier

community page via the “like” process. The first tier page

is, in turn, linked to 25 additional pages within its

extended intentional community. “Liking” an organization in

the first tier then opens the 38 sites that comprise the

second tier’s extended community. “Liking” an organization

on the second tier opens up the 101 sites that comprise the

third tier’s extended community.

Incidental/Ad Hoc Community

Incidental/ad hoc communities form without any specific

intent to create community linkages between individuals or

activities. Figure 43 graphically depicts the structure of

an unintentional/hoc community.

Figure 41. Incidental/Ad Hoc Community Structure.

While the park initiative is a determining factor in

the formation of intentional and extended intentional, as

Figure 43 shows incidental/ad hoc communities can form

without any deliberate action on the park of the park. As

noted earlier, incidental/ad hoc communities form at the

intersection of three elements, an interest, the focus of

that interest, and a social media application that mediates

the interest and focus. An example of an incidental/ad hoc

community is where individuals come together around their

shared interest in photography, have focused that interest

on GRTE, and use Instagram to share that interest and focus

with others. Another example is where individuals are

interested in videography, have focused this interest on

AMIS, and use YouTube share that interest and focus with

others. A key characteristic of incidental/ad hoc

communities is that they are fluid and dynamic, forming and

reforming over time. Community members may also overlap with

other communities. For example, individuals focused on AMIS

may belong to both the photography/Instagram and

videography/YouTube community simultaneously.

The netnographic study reinforces other community

concepts found in the literature. McQueen (2001) defines

community in three dimensions, community as place, community

as a social system, and community as interest-based groups.

Table 11 maps McQueen’s definition of community aspects to

the components identified by the netnographic research.

Table 11. Mapping Community Structure to Netnographic StudyData.

ASPECTS DESCRIPTION STUDY MAPPING

Community as place

Physical location, workplace, suburb, neighborhood.

NPS properties such as GRTE.

Community as social system

Community networks, social bonds, and interactions betweenpeople.

Social media networks such as Facebook andTwitter.

Community as interest-based groups

Heterogeneous groupsof people who share needs, tasks, occupations, struggles, interests, or aspirations.

Visitors, partners, non-profit groups, government organizations, commercial entities.

Community as place refers to a physical location such

as a workplace, suburb, or neighborhood. In the case of this

study the communities identified in this study the places

are parks within the park system. Community as social system

refers to networks, social bonds, and interpersonal

interactions. This study identified three distinct network

types; intentional, extended intentional, and incidental/ad

hoc. Community as interest-based groups refers to

heterogeneous groups of people who share needs, tasks,

occupations, struggles, interests, or aspirations. This

study identified individuals who form groups based on common

interests such as photography and videography. The

communities defined within the study contain elements of all

three concepts. For example, an intentional community formed

around a place such as Grand Teton National Park, involves

interpersonal communications such as shared comments and

postings, and involves a common interest in the park itself.

The netnography study shows that social media programs

have the ability to create communities focus on NPS sites.

Respondents recognized the importance of community to their

efforts and the potential of social media applications to

foster communities. Some have taken preliminary steps to

leverage social media to create community and foster

protective behaviors within the communities that do exist.

Examples include strengthening the bonds with existing

intentional communities through outreach, engaging visitors

and external community members in virtual activities such as

photo contests, and inviting community members to join

citizen science and resource monitoring programs.

However, many factors hinder the further development

and expansion of these community building activities. First

and foremost is staffing and funding. All of the sites

interviewed noted the lack of time and resources needed to

develop and implement a comprehensive social media program.

The second involves the limitations of the technology

itself. Combined with the vastness and geography of Park

Service properties the reach and coverage of social media

applications is extremely limited; often being confined to

visitor centers. Another involves the lack of analytical

data on their social media programs. Currently data is

limited to what is available through the applications alone.

For example, how many “likes” or “shares” on a Facebook page

or post and how many “favorites” or “re-tweets” of a Twitter

feed. Park staff lack critical data that would provide

insights on how to format content or what content is most

effective at attracting the attention of the target

audience. They also lack any data that would indicate that a

particular social media program, such as a cultural resource

impact awareness program, had any impact on the attitudes or

behaviors of park visitors. The dearth of hard data makes it

difficult for park management to justify expanded social

media application deployment.

Recommendations

In 2012 the Technology Subcommittee of the National

Park Service conducted a study that provided a conceptual

framework for technology use within the park system

(National Education Council, 2012). The authors then extend

the conceptual framework to describe how the implementation

of these recommendations would enhance the visitor

experience at the GLCA/RABR, beginning with a baseline

assessment of current capabilities. GLCA/RABR’s current

technology infrastructure is weak. Wi-Fi and cell phone

reception is poor in this area. Visitors to Carl Hayden,

Wahweap and Bullfrog Visitor Centers encounter poor cellular

coverage, low bandwidth, and limited access to online

resources.

Based on the basic and goals described by the committee

GLCA/RABR management should build a roadmap to build out

their infrastructure designed to enhance the visitor

experience as follows:

Create “virtual visitor services zones” at all visitor centers, marinas, lake access points, and key community portals, extending the reach of cellular and Wi-Fi services, andincreasing bandwidth.

Extend the popular LAKE Ranger Program by adding Wi-Fi hotspot capability to the “floating visitor centers”.

Provide technology-enhanced interpretive experiences by using technology to provide another portal to the meanings and significance of park cultural resources.

Designate a Social Media Park Ranger to facilitate park engagement with Web 2.0 content and capabilities.

Produce a steady flow of articles, blog postings, webinars, images, videos, podcasts,lesson plans, announcements, oral histories, interactive maps, and related content and usethis content as the basis for two-way

dialogue, community engagement, and communitybuilding efforts.

Launch a social media campaign, calling attention to the need for cultural resource protection, recognizing businesses and organizations who implement targeted education and outreach initiatives, and eliciting stewardship commitments.

Use technology to build a stewardship coalition among concessioners, tour operators, boat owners, boat rental companies, marina owners, and corporate sponsors.

Develop a series of applications including those that provide navigational support to the boater community and facilitate monitoring of cultural and archeological sites within the park.

Engage repeat visitors and local audiences inmeaningful ways, using technology to deepen their connection to park stories and themes, to provide a forum where they can share theirown Glen Canyon experiences, and to mobilize participation in citizen science initiatives.

The technology recommendations and scenarios listed

above focus on using technology in new ways to engage the

visitor community to enhance their learning opportunities

and to make personal connections to cultural resources

within the park. Implementing the technology recommendations

will yield a mobile platform upon which future services can

be deployed.

These recommendations involve considerable expense and

would require a long deployment timeframe. In the short term

park staff should engage the three existing community types

identified in this study with the specific goal of

strengthening community structure and fostering protective

behaviors within and between community elements. The

recommendations which follow extend only to strengthening

social media communities associated with the park. They do

not cover the nature of the target audience nor the message

content that would be most effective in reaching the target

community. All of these elements are critical components of

an effective social media campaign. These elements are the

subject of the two other studies commissioned as part of the

broader GLCA/RABR study. Figure 44 describes the focus areas

for the intentional community.

Figure 42. Intentional Community Recommendations.

Park Staff

ParkFacebookPage

ExternalFacebookAccount

ExternalTwitterAccount

Like Post

Share Post

“Favorite”Tweet

Retweet

OtherCom m unities

OtherCom m unities

NPS RulesSite-specific RulesSocial M edia PlanConfiguration Control

InterpretationInternsOther Staff

Im agesVideoTextAudio

Social M ediaSite Rules

Local NPS SiteRegional NSPNational NPS

VisitorsPartnersNon-ProfitsLocal/State/NatlGovCom m ercial Entities

InterestedParties

ParkTwitterFeed

NPS Site

LEGENDGreen NPSBlue ExternalRed New em phasisGray Not studiedLine weight Relative volum e

1

2

2

3

1. Tightly couple the content between Facebook and Twitter. Use Twitter to leverage content available on and drive traffic to the Facebook site. The goal is to increase awareness and reach of content available and drive traffic to the park’s Facebook page (See line onein Figure 44).

2. Encourage and strengthen bidirectional communication channels between internal and external Facebook and Twitter accounts. The goal is to increase the level of posts, comments, and tweets initiated by the external community (See lines 2 in Figure 44).

3. Encourage and strengthen bidirectional communications channels between internal and external Facebook and Twitter accounts (see lines three in Figure 44).

Figure 45 describes recommendations for strengthening theextended intentional community.

Figure 43. Extended Intentional Community Recommendations.

Park Staff

ParkFacebookPage

1stTierFacebook(25)

Like Page

NPS RulesSite-specific RulesSocial M edia PlanConfiguration Control

InterpretationInternsOther Staff

Social M ediaSite Rules

Local NPS Site PartnersNon-ProfitsLocal/State/NatlGovCom m ercial Entities

Like Page

2nd Tier(38)

2nd Tier

Like Page

Like Page

NPS Site

3nd Tier(101)

3nd Tier

3nd Tier

3nd Tier

Like Page

LEGENDGreen NPSBlue ExternalRed New em phasisGray Not studiedLine weight Relative volum e

The goal of this recommendation is to leverage the

multiplier effect of engaging downstream Facebook entities

to increase the reach of park Facebook content. Key elements

of the recommendation are:

1. Develop a strategy for selecting downstream Facebook entities and selecting only those that align with park goals.

2. Post content directly to chosen Facebook pages to increase downstream awareness and drive traffic back tothe park Facebook page.

Figure 46 describes recommendations for strengthening theincidental/ad hoc community.

Figure 44. Incidental/Ad Hoc Community Recommendations.

Park Staff

NPS RulesSite-specific RulesSocial M edia PlanConfiguration Control

InterpretationInternsOther Staff

Social M ediaSite Rules

Local NPS Site Visitors

Instagram

Flickr

Tum blr

YouTube

Pinterest

Interested PartiesNPS Site

LEGENDGreen NPSBlue ExternalRed New em phasisGray Not studiedLine weight Relative volum e

The goal of this recommendation is to engage the

incidental community directly to increase awareness and

drive traffic to the park’s social media pages.

1. Monitor select applications for relevant content.

2. Like and comment on content found on incidental community pages.

3. Post park content directly on incidental community pages with links back to park social media pages.

4. Select notable content on incidental community sites and post on park’s social media pages with attribution given to the originator of the content.

CONCLUSION

Since its inception, managers at GLCA/RABR have

sought to dissuade park visitors from engaging in behaviors

that are detrimental to park cultural resources. In the

past, agencies with oversight responsibility did not

actively engage in mediation and prevention programs.

However, when the NPS assumed responsibility for the area

they began to implement prevention programs in keeping with

their preservation and conservation mission. Park management

has used many of the tactical tools at their disposal to

influence visitor behaviors, including site management

techniques, deterrence and enforcement, regulations, and

visitor education. However, according to current park

management, these measures have largely failed and cultural

resource destruction continues unabated.

Park management has yet to implement a comprehensive,

proactive, regional program designed to counter visitor

impacts to cultural resource as outlined in the 1987 CRMP.

Park management has experience developing and implementing

successful comprehensive resource protection programs. For

example, the Zebra/Quagga Mussel prevention program, rolled

out in 2000, is designed to minimize the risk of inadvertent

introduction of mussels into Lake Powell by the boating

community. Key aspects of the program include a boater risk

assessment protocol implemented by park entry staff, boat

inspections conducted at public boat ramps, boat

certification requirements, boat quarantine as indicated,

and boater education programs. In lieu of a comprehensive

intervention program as exemplified by the Zebra Mussel

program, degradation of park cultural resources continues

unabated and threatens to destroy a significant percentage

of existing cultural resources within the park if left

unchecked.

With the advent of wireless technologies and social

networking applications managers at GLCA/RABR have a new set

of tools to apply to the cultural resource destruction

problem. As noted in the literature review communities of

like-minded individuals have significant impact on the

behaviors of group members. Social network-based communities

are a subset of communities in general but differ in

significant ways. First, social media communities are

geographically dispersed and informal. Group members rarely

see another group member and only know the personal traits

that other members choose to share with the group. Second,

communication within the group is driven by the end user and

frequently occurs asynchronously. Group members decided

when, from where, and through which technology to engage the

group. As noted earlier a number of web 1.0 communities

centered on the GLCA/RABR are in place. However, Web 2.0-

based social networks, being more interactive in nature,

have the potential of impacting non-compliant visitor

behaviors through the formation of group values, self-

regulation, and punishment of non-compliant group members.

This study investigated the potential impact of Web

2.0-based tools to influence communities focused on the

GLCA/RABR area, specifically by using these tools to reduce

non-compliant visitor behaviors. My results show that social

media-based communities have formed focused on the national

parks.

Many different communities exist which derive their

identities based on common interests and activities. An

analysis of the netnographic data suggests the existence of

three different community types, intentional, extended

intentional, and incidental. Intentional communities involve

social media sites that are created and maintained by Park

Service staff. Interactions between community members

typically involve bidirectional postings between community

members. Extended intentional communities form when Park

Service staff extends social media interactions to external

communities beyond the first level intentional community.

Often these communities involve interactions between the

Park Service site and other organizations such as government

agencies, non-profit organizations, advocacy groups, and

commercial enterprises. Incidental communities form when

individuals come together to share a common interest and

focus using a common social media application. Incidental

communities can be temporal and fluid, with community

members joining and exiting as interests and focus changes

over time.

The interview data suggests that community members,

especially intentional community members, will engage in a

variety of social media-based activities focused on the park

site. For example, park visitors and other interested

parties participate in photography contests focused on park

resources. Others have joined in resource monitoring and

reporting activities, thereby extending the reach of park

staff. However, the interview data does not show a linkage

between social media programs and resource protection

attitudes and behaviors. If fact, the sparse social media

application metrics available to park staff (likes, shares,

favorites, re-tweets) suggests that posts containing

protective messages generate a small response when compared

to posts containing images of scenery or wildlife. The

inability to demonstrate a causal relationship between

social media programs and protective attitudes and behaviors

suggests an area of further research focused on this

relationship. Using the results of this study, combined with

the two other studies focused on the cultural resource

protection problem at GLCA/RABR, further research could

study the specific impact of using social media applications

to deliver proven messages, targeted at the boater

community, to modify boater attitudes and behaviors towards

cultural resource protection within the park.

REFERENCES

Brown, C., Clark, K., Coble, T., Druin, A., Gray, T., Henriquez, A., Kodak, D., Krueger, K., & Searson M. (2012). National park system advisory board education committee technology subcommittee white paper, National Education Council.

Chang, A. & Kannan, P. K. (2008). Leveraging Web 2.0 in government. Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government.

Chou, S., Hunt, Y.M., Beckjord E.B., Moser R.P. & Hesse B.W.(2009). Social media use in the United States: Implications for health communication. Journal of Medical Internet Research; 11(4), 48.

Chick, G. & Dong, E. (2004). Possibility of refining the hierarchical model of leisure constraints through cross cultural research (Report No. NE-317). Newtown square, PA: USDA Forest Service.

Crawford, D., Jackson E. L. & Godbey, G. (1991). A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 13, 309-320.

Curtis, L., Edwards, C., Fraser, Kristen L., Gudelsky, S., Holmquist, J. Thornton, K., & Sweetser, K. D. (2010). Adoption of social media for public relations by nonprofit organizations. Public Relations Review, 36, 90–92.

Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. Perspectives on Activity Theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Farmer, J. (1999). Glen Canyon dammed: Inventing Lake Powell and the canyon country. Tucson, ARIZONA: University of Arizona Press.

Gibbs, G. R. & Taylor, C. (2010). "What is qualitative data analysis (QDA)? Retrieved from onlineqda.hud.ac.uk/Intro_QDA/what_is_qda.php.

Gilbert, D. & Hudson, S. (2000). Tourism demand constraints: a skiing participation. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 106-123.

Greenberg, J. & MacAulay, M. (2009). NPO 2.0? Exploring the web presence of environmental nonprofit organizations in Canada. Global Media Journal, 2(1), 63-88.

Gunawardena, C. N., Hermans, M. B., Sanchez, D., Richmond, C., Bohley, M., & Tuttle, R. (2009). A theoretical frameworkfor building online communities of practice with social networking tools. Educational Media International, 46(1), 3-16.

Ham, Sam H., Brown, Terry J., Curtis, Jim, Weiler, Betty, Hughes, Mark, & Poll, Mark (2007). Promoting Persuasion in Protected Areas. Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre.

Heywood, J.L. & Murdock, W.E. (2002). Social norms in outdoor recreation: searching for the behavior-condition link. Leisure Sciences: 24(3-4), 283-295.

Holmes, N., Manni, M., Eury, D., & Hollenhorst, S. (2007). Glen Canyon National Recreation area visitor study (VSPreport No. 186). Retrieved from University of Idaho Park Studies Unit website: http://psu.uidaho.edu/files/vsp/reports/186_GLCA_rept.pdf.

Horne, C. (2001) Sociological perspectives on the emergence of social norms. In Hechter , M. & Opp, K. (Eds.), Social Norms, 3(34). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Horne, C. (2000). Community and the state: the relationship between normative and legal controls. European Sociological Review 16(3), 225-43.

Keckley, P. H. & Hoffmann, M. (2010). Social networks in health care: communication, collaboration and insights. Washington, DC: Deloitte Center for Health Solutions,

Kimmm, J. (2009). Three-factor model and pyramid model of leisure constraints. Journal of Travel and Tourism Research. 9(2).

Kitts, J. A. & Yen-Sheng C. (2008). Norms. In V. Parillo (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Social Problems (pp. 625-626). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kollock, P. (1994) The emergence of exchange structures: an experimental study of uncertainty, commitment, and trust. The American Journal of Sociology, 100(2), 313–345.

Knackmuhs. E. (2011). But does it work?: the impact of social media use on interpretive outcomes and place attachment at San Francisco bay area park (master’s thesis). Stephen F. Austin State University: Nacagdoches, TX.

Kopera, S. (2009). Application of social software in tourism industry. Institute of Organization and Managment in Industry, 3(1), 120 – 127.

Kozinets, R. V. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(February), 61–72. doi:10.1509/jmkr.39.1.61.18935

Kozinetts, R. V. (2009). Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Leppaniemi, M., Karjalouto, H. (2005). Factors influencing consumers’ willingness to accept mobile advertising : a conceptual model.Business, 3(3), 197-213.

MacQueen K. M., McLellan E., Metzger D. S., Kegeles S., Strauss R. P., & Scotti R. (2001).What is community? An evidence-based definition for participatory public health. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1929-1938.

Minato, W., Curtis, A., & Allan, C. (2010): Social norms and natural resource management in a changing rural community. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 12(4), 381.

Musiał, K. & KArizonaienko, P. (2013). Social networks on the internet. World Wide Web, 16, 31–72.

Nardi, B. A. (1996). Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

NPHA, NPS will team up to boost cell and internet access in parks (2012, October/November). National Park Hospitality Association. Retrieved from http://www.peer.org/assets/docs/nps/1_31_13_NHPA_connectivity_plans.pdf.

National Park System Advisory Board Education Committee (2012). Technology Subcommittee White Paper. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/resources/upload/Task-6-NPSAB-Education-Technology.pdf

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Park Service (1987). GLCA/RABR resource management plan: cultural component.

Obar, J. A., Zube, P., & Lampe, C. (2012). Advocacy 2.0: an analysis of how advocacy groups in the United States perceive and use social media as tools for facilitating civic engagement and collective action. Journal of Information Policy, (2), 1-25.

Okun, M. A.; Ruehlman, L.; Karoly, P.; Lutz, R., Fairholme, C., & Schaub, R. (2003). Social support and social norms: do both contribute to predicting leisure-time exercise? American Journal of Health Behavior, 27(5), 493-507.

Osimo, D. (2008). Web 2.0 in government: why and how (Report No. 23358 EN). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publicationsof the European Communities. Retrieved from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC45269.pdf.

Ostrom, E. (2000). Collective action and the evolution of social norms, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 137–158.

Powell, J, W. (1895). Canyons of the Colorado (HTML version). Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/8082/8082-h/8082-h.htm.

Snape, D. & Spencer-Ritchie, L .(2003). The Foundations of Qualitative Research. In Ritchie, J. & Lewis, J. (Ed.),Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 2-23), London: Sage Publications.

Robelia, B. A., Greenhow, C., & Burton, L. (2011). Environmental learning in online social networks: adopting environmentally responsible behaviors. Environmental Education Research, 17(4), 553-575.

Sigala, M. (2007). WEB 2.0 in the tourism industry: a new tourism generation and new e-business models. Chios, Greece: University of the Aegean,

Surman, M. & Reilly, K. (2003). Appropriating the internet for social change. Brooklyn, NY: Social Science Research Council.

Swan, M. (2009). Emerging patient-driven health care models: an examination of health social networks, consumer personalized medicine

and quantified self-tracking. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 6, 492-525.

Thackeray, R., Neiger, B. L., Hanson, C. L., & McKenzie, J. F. (2008). Enhancing promotional strategies within social marketing programs: use of Web 2.0 social media. Health Promotion Practice, 9(4), 338-43. doi:10.1177/1524839908325335.

Thevenot, G. (2007). Blogging as a social media. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 7(3-4), 287-289. doi:10.1057/palgrave.thr.605006.2

Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: how nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review, 35,102–106.

Bradley, W. (2001). Nonlegal regulation of the legal profession: social norms in professional communities. Vanderbilt Law Review, 54(5).

White, D. D. & Hendee, J. C. (2000). Primal hypotheses: the relationship between naturalness, solitude and the wilderness experience benefits of development of self, development of community and spiritual development. Ogden UT: USDA Forest Service.

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service (1987). Research management plan, cultural component. Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Page, Arizona.

United States General Accounting Office (1987). Problems protecting and preserving federal archeological resources. Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. General Accounting Office.

Wright, D. K., & Hinson, M. D. (2008). How blogs and social mediaare changing public relations and the way it is practiced. Public Relations Journal, 2(2), 1-21.

APPENDIX A: GLCA/RABR PORTENTIAL INTERVIEW LIST

NAME STATE BODY OF WATERAmistad NRA TX Reservoir

Bighorn Canyon NRA

MT Reservoir

Curecanti NRA CO Lake

Lake Chelan NRA WA Lake

Lake Mead NRA NV Reservoir

Lake Roosevelt NRA

WA Reservoir

Ross Lake NRA WA Lake

Santa Monica Mts. CA Lake

Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity NRA

CA Reservoir

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore

MI Lake

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore

MI Lake

Isle Royale National Park

MI Lake

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore

IN Lake

NAME STATE BODY OF WATER

Voyageurs National Park

MN Lakes

Rio Grande Wild &Scenic River

TX River

Padre Island National Seashore

TX Ocean

Buffalo National River

AR River

Obed Wild & Scenic River

TN River

Big South Fork National River & Recreation Area

TN River

Great Basin National Park

NV Lake

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

NV Lake

Big Fork NationalRiver & Recreation Area

TN/KY River

Little River Canyon National Preserve

AL River

Jean Lafitte National HistoricPark and Reserve

LA Lake

NAME STATE BODY OF WATER

Chattahoochee National Recreation Area

GA River

Cumberland IslandNational Seashore

GA Ocean

Gulf Islands National Seashore

FL/MS Ocean

Canaveral National Seashore

FL Ocean

Cape Hatteras National Seashore

NC Ocean

Cape Lookout National Seashore

NC Ocean

Wheeling NationalHeritage Area

WV River

New River Gorge National River

WV River

VITA

Chris received his Bachelor of Science in Forestry

degree from the University of Michigan’s School of Natural

Resources and Environment in 1976. For the next 35 years

Chris worked in the telecommunications and computer

industries in various technical and senior management

positions for large multinational corporations. In June of

2011 Chris enrolled in the Masters of Science in Resource

Interpretation program at Stephen F. Austin State University

in Nacogdoches, Texas, and expects to complete the program

in May of 2015. Chris is a Texas Master Naturalist and

frequently teaches classes on forest ecology, forest

management, dendrology, and entomology to master naturalist

and other groups in North Texas. Chris chairs the land

committee of the Connemara Conservancy Foundation, a land

trust focused on preserving endangered landscapes and

protecting watersheds in 33 counties in North Texas. Chris

also serves on the Connemara board of directors.

Permanent Address: 2417 Bigleaf CourtPlano, Texas. 75074

American Psychological Association (APA) style was used

throughout.

This thesis was typed by Christopher Ebling.